Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 113








COVER PAGE: http://thecrystalfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/TCF_SFS_011016_Winter_Wetland-4.jpg

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................PAGE 1
WILEY SLOUGH.................................................................................................................................................PAGE 3
UNION BAY NATURAL AREA............................................................................................................................PAGE 17
MARCELLUS SHRUB-STEPPE PRESERVE......................................................................................................PAGE 33
PADILLA BAY....................................................................................................................................................PAGE 45
BALLARD..........................................................................................................................................................PAGE 59
CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................................PAGE 75
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................PAGE 77
APPENDIX 1.....................................................................................................................................................PAGE 81
APPENDIX 2....................................................................................................................................................PAGE 85

Washington state is an ecologically diverse region that ranges from rocky waterfront shorelines, to densely wooded areas, to desert-like regions to the east. The restoration
design proposals that follow in this report mimic the diverse environment of Washington, ranging from Wiley Slough, a tidally influenced saltmarsh in Skagit county, to the
Union Bay Natural Area wetlands, located on University of Washington property, to Marcellus Shrub-Steppe Preserve, a vernal pool complex located in Eastern
Washington, to Padilla Bay in Northern Washington, to Ballard, an urban neighborhood of Seattle. Each chapter in this report reflects the values of residents of Washington
in their own respective right. Each restoration model was designed with intentions of pleasing as many stakeholders as possible, as well as preserving Washingtons natural
resources and ecosystems like salmon populations and sprawling wetland complexes.

Our first chapter, Wiley Slough, focuses on removing and relocating dikes that were originally installed to create farming land. Our restoration design for this site will open
up part of the area back to tidally influenced salt water, which will in turn, help to rehabilitate salmon populations in the area, slightly de-emphasizing agricultural and
recreational uses of the area. Our second chapter, Union Bay Natural Area, is centered around converting an unused gravel parking lot back into wetland so that it may be
smoothly integrated into the surrounding wetland ecosystem. This restoration project seeks to do damage control as the site is located on a landfill turned parking lot. This
design creates a more environmentally friendly use of overlooked land. The third chapter of this report, Marcellus Shrub-Steppe Preserve, focuses on the rehabilitation and
preservation of the vernal pool complex just outside of Ritzville, Washington. Vernal pool restoration will, with desired outcomes, produce higher plant life diversity, as
vernal pools are home to many rare and threatened plant species. The design for the fourth chapter, Padilla Bay, is focused on preserving both salmon populations and
agricultural practices. This restoration effort supports both the fishing and farming industries in Skagit county, while protecting the natural resources in the area. Lastly, our
fifth chapter, Ballard, focuses on bringing greenways and pollinator pathways to an urban environment in order to improve the air quality, maneuverability of the area, and
general aesthetics of the environment.


The Skagit Wildlife Area sits on over 16,700 acres,

containing a wide variety of habitats nestled within
and adjacent to agricultural fields (Figure 1). The Skagit
Wildlife area is known for its diversity of aquatic and
terrestrial species. According to the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the area is broken up
into 16 different managed units, the units containing
agricultural and natural habitats are the most heavily
monitored. Most of these units border the glacial-fed
Skagit River or the shore of Skagit Bay, including the
area known as Wiley Slough. Wiley Slough is a portion
of the tidal land that connects both bodies of water.

IMAGE: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tEG4v5LSl6k/UPC1fPx3t-I/AAAAAAAAE3s/N4Q7eSFuXMM/s1600/Story-7D1_0695.jpg

Figure 2 (Wiley Slough, Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Figure 1 (Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Wiley Slough is located in the Skagit Wildlife Area on Fir Island (Figure 2). This area has been used primarily for recreational activities such as hunting, hiking, and bird
watching. It is also a popular habitat for migratory birds. Wiley Slough is an estuary, a transitional area where the fresh water of the Skagit River enters the saltwater of
Skagit Bay. The transitional area creates a tidal salt marsh that experiences a daily variation in water levels that fluctuate depending on the season and time of day.
According to the 2005 Wiley Slough Restoration Design Report, high tide averages to be about 6 feet above sea level and low tide is about 6 feet below sea level. The salt
marsh provides a waterfowl the necessary resources for survival. This area serves as a habitat for a number of fish, including at least three types of salmon: Chinook, Chum,
and Coho. It is an especially critical habitat for the salmon during the early stages of their life-cycle.
Work on Wiley Slough began in the 1870s with the construction of levees to protect individual farm plots. In 1948 parts of Wiley Slough were purchased to
serve as recreational pheasant hunting grounds. Later, in the 1960s, an additional 150- 200 acres of land were diked to convert tidal marshes into viable
farming land for cereal grains. Since the initial diking and draining of tidal marshes, greater emphasis has been placed on the preservation of recreational and
agricultural uses for the Wiley Slough area. These changes made to Wiley Slough have since impacted the Chinook salmon population that depend on the
estuarine habitat.

Dramatic changes to Wiley Slough have threatened the salmon population due to juvenile salmon using the estuarine to avoid natural predators, and feed on
insects in the slough to gain the strength and size necessary to make the transition from freshwater to saltwater habitats (Wiley Slough Restoration Project).
By removing certain dikes, land used for growing cereal grains will be converted back into marsh land, creating a more conducive environment for Chinook
salmon that are threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. The removal of land used for cereal grains however will reduce the presence of
waterfowl that are attracted to the grains, thus deemphasizing the recreational purpose of Wiley Slough. This will potentially decrease foot traffic through the
slough that has been used for hunting, hiking, bird watching, and dog training, (Wiley Slough Restoration Project) thus creating a safer habitat for juvenile
salmon to mature. This shift in emphasis to protecting the salmon population rather than the interests of recreational hunters, prioritizes the interests of the
Native American tribes in the Skagit area who consider salmon to be a part of their spiritual and cultural identity.

As with most projects of this scope and significance, working within budget constraints is always present and relevant in any phase of the completion of the objectives.
Using the allotted and approved funds in the most effective way possible is a consideration for every decision made throughout the design, implementation, and
monitoring of this project. Due to these reasons, we have decided to leave budget constraints out of the three main components of the project and their respective

Levee Deconstruction: Redevelopment of tidal channels throughout the Wiley Slough region without flooding the adjacent farmlands is a critical design constraint that
would need to be addressed for the levee deconstruction phase of the project. Removing dikes and rearranging tide gates can have significant implications of the project
on the neighbouring farms, and may adversely affect its ability to maintain healthy crops. Ultimately, this process may in turn return the small channels to the area and
provide sheet flow of nutrients and fish in the watershed environment, thereby cultivating more optimal salmon-run habitat for future seasons.

Relocation of Tidegate: As part of the objective to restore fish access and tidal flooding to the Wiley Slough region, efforts to determine the appropriate size of
detention facilities and storage volumes during key flood times of the year, have caused concern for private landowners in the area. The appropriation of this measure for
flood control would tie-in directly with protecting the adjacent farms from flooding as a result of these measures.

Agricultural Drainage: Properly maintaining and improving the drainage of agricultural systems would also be an overarching consideration and constraint during the
duration of all phases of the project. Eutrophication of water systems may potentially create hypoxic zones, hindering the healthy proliferation of fish species.
With restoration efforts including the de-embankment of Wiley Slough, the predicted level of repair to the drained salt marsh ecosystem looks promising. Prior to levees being installed
along the slough there was a tidal connection between the surrounding land and river. Removing the levees will allow for tidal flows and flooding interactions on the land. Repairing the
floodplain increases habitat for salmon. Altering the hydrology of the project site will be a big factor of repair as the amount of water on land will change the plant species present and
the wildlife that will be found there.

The predicted level of repair possible at Wiley Slough is 4.9 acres of tidal marshland habitat and the re-establishment of native salt marsh plants with the idea of providing an
estuarine habitat critical for the endangered Chinook salmon (WDFW 2008). This level of repair is feasible for this ecosystem. One particular study was conducted by Garbutt& Walters
that looked at the natural regeneration of salt marshes after the destruction of a dike due to a storm. The results showed that the removal of a dike that allowed for the natural
hydrology to occur led to the recolonization of native salt marsh vegetation, predicting a good reclamation of a salt marsh ecosystem that is to be intentionally restored (Garbutt &
Wolters 2008). Another salt marsh restoration study done by Chang looked at restoration success 10 years after de-embankments and found that 78-96% of target plant species were
found at the project sites (Chang et. al 2016). The possible amount of repair that can be done in a salt marsh ecosystem is good and intended outcomes of restoration at Wiley Slough
are obtainable.

A likely limitation to the possible level of repair is surrounding land uses and Skagit Wildlife Area stakeholders. The proposed Wiley Slough restoration area is surrounded by
agricultural land, whose stakeholders do not want their farmland to become flooded and is one of the reasons why the area was originally diked. Other user groups negatively impacted
by the marshland restoration are waterfowl hunters, birdwatchers, and recreational users of the Skagit Wildlife Area. The interests of these groups could lead to problems with the
restoration process that could stall the project or become limiting to its success. Surrounding land uses can also be a factor that could affect the level of repair of the ecosystem.
Adjacent land uses could impact the establishment of the target ecosystem. A possible impact from the neighboring farmland could be on the water quality that will flow downstream
into the slough and water quality is important to stream health affecting invertebrates, fish and other wildlife that use Wiley Slough.

IMAGES: http://www.fidalgoweather.net/2011/05/return-to-wiley-slough.html

Autogenic repair is not likely at Wiley Slough. Without the removal of the western most dike, about 157 acres of land will remain drained marshland that could
be a potential habitat for juvenile salmon. In the absence of intervention through removal and reconstruction of new dikes in different locations, Chinook
salmon population will not increase. The relocation of tidal gates will also allow for tidally influenced salt water within the slough.
The options for the restoration of Wiley Slough revolve around the removal of levees to bring back the natural hydrologic regime. There is a range of restoration
options that can be done as long as certain project requirements are met. A couple of the requirements are the breaching of existing dikes to improve salmon
habitat, reinforcing the dikes upstream to increase their effectiveness of preventing flooding on farm lands and to do so while using existing material from the
site. There are various methods that can be used to remove the diked area. For this projects location, the most practical method would be the use of dump
trucks to remove the dike material and translocate it to the area of the dikes being reinforced.

The estimated restoration effort to return Wiley Slough back to a salt marsh ecosystem is fairly low with the most effort being the removal and reinforcement of
the levees. Once the major effort of removing a big portion of the leveed area is done the reestablishment of the salt marsh is fairly passive, allowing for natural
regeneration of the site from surrounding seed sources and the tidal flooding selecting which species will become part of the plant community.

In the event of the desired outcomes becoming present like the removal of tidal obstacles and the creation of natural tidal channels in the area, the estimated
requirements would largely involve regular maintenance and monitoring of the marsh areas. Monitoring for levels of success with regards to how these
channels have influenced aquatic activity and wildlife presence would be critical in the requirements moving forward with the project.

Undesired or unintended consequences may involve the introduction of invasive species of plants and wildlife, as well as a lack of natural hydrologic flow in
the area as a result of the restructuring of the dams and channels. In the presence of invasive plant species, removal crews would need to be required to
uproot and transport the invasive material off site, while also maintaining and planting the natural and native population that is typical of the area. In the
event of tidal flows that do not meet the desired outcomes of the reconstruction, excavation equipment and operators would be required to re-contour the
channels to better suit the design requirements and needs. Re-planting would potentially be needed as a result of the contouring as well.

To rehabilitate the natural habitat of the salt water tidal marsh at the Wiley Slough, we have designed a multi-step approach that will focus on restoring the physical
processes and ecological functions. This multi-step restoration approach would include actions such as; relocation of the tide gate, invasive species management, trail
improvement, drainage management, and the removal, improvement, and retention of dikes.

While our goal is to recreate the historical tidal marsh, it is also crucial that we preserve the adjacent farmland from flooding.
Thereby, our group will begin with phase 1, which includes:
- The dismantling of the current tide gate that is located at the southwestern part of Wiley Slough.
- Construction of a new tide gate upstream of the original tide gate, and a new dike along the northern perimeter of the restoration area to mitigate
the possibility of flooding into neighboring farmland.
- Removal of the western-most dike that is located on either side of the current tide gate.

The removal of the old dike and tidal gate initiates the reestablishment of the tidal marshland in the western portion of Wiley Slough. The removal of both the tide gate
and dike will occur simultaneously as the construction of the new dike and tide gate. This allows the materials from the western-most dike to be used for the
construction of the new dike, in order to protect the neighboring farmland.
We will remove about 2,100 ft of the western dike during phase 1. We will use the material from this dike to then construct 2,900 ft of a new dike on the northern border
of the marsh to guard the farmlands. The material from the original dike will not be enough to fully complete the new dike. However, during the next phase we will
remove the eastern dike, which will produce enough material to complete the new dike.
The first phase reintroduced the natural processes of tidal flooding to the previously segregated area. The second phase will further reintroduce more tidal processes to a greater area of
Wiley Slough. These tidal processes will improve channelization and sediment erosion and accumulation to establish a habitable environment for salmon. Phase 2 will involve:
- Dismantling of southwestern dike that borders the Freshwater Slough.
- Reinforcing the northwestern dike that protects more farmland.
- Retain the current dike that runs through the western region and south towards the Freshwater Slough. We will also build a footbridge crossing parts of the saltwater marsh so
that the public can reach the tidal plains.
- Provide maintenance for the dike trails.

We have projected to dismantle 5,000 ft of the eastern dike and transport the material to improve and reinforce the northwestern dike. The 5,000 ft of material will account for about
52,929 cu yards of material, which will be more than what is necessary to reinforce the northwestern dike.

Similar to the first phase, this phase will assist in the reintroduction of riverine and tidal processes to more of the Wiley Slough. With the retention of the old dike and new footbridge, it
allow the public more access through the slough so they are able to see more of the natural habitat.

Once the dikes have been removed, the marshlands will begin to flood from the tides. This will eliminate some of the invasive species that have invaded the marshlands overtime since
the dikes were constructed. For the final stage, we will:
- Improve and manage any drainage features.
- Remove and manage invasive species of both the western and eastern marshes that have been restored and the natural processes have been recreated.
- Plant native species in the western marsh such as Schoenoplectus pungens (threesquare bulrush) and Carex lyngbyei (Lyngbyes sedge).
Phase 1: Phase 2:
Removal - 2,100 ft: Removal 5,000 ft:
Old Dike = 11.56 cu yrds Old Dike = 11.56 cu yrds
11.56 cu yrds / linear foot * 2,100 ft * 0.9 (recompacted soil) = 21,848.4 cu yrds 11.56 cu yrds / linear foot * 5,000 ft * 0.9 (recompacted soil) = 52,020 cu yrds
21,848.4 cu yrds / 18.52 cu yrds / linear foot (new dike) = 1,179.72 linear feet 52,020 cu yrds / 18.52 cu yrds / linear foot (new dike) = 2,808.86 linear feet

Construct - 2,900 ft Reinforced Dike = 2,300 ft

2,900 linear ft - 1,179.72 linear ft = 1,720.28 linear ft of material to finish new dike 2,300 linear ft * 11.56 cu yrds / linear foot = 26,588 cu yrds
2,300 linear ft * 18.52 cu yrds / linear foot = 42,596 cu yrds (dike is reinforced)
42,596 cu yrds - 26,588 cu yrds = 16,008 cu yards ( of material to finish dike)
52,020 cu yrds (dike removal) - 16,008 cu yrds = 35,932 cu yrds (extra material)

Finish Construction of 1,720.28 linear ft:

35,932 cu yrds / 18.52 cu yrds / linear foot = 1,940.17 linear feet
1,940.17 linear ft - 1,720.28 linear ft = 219.89 linear ft of extra material.

IMAGE: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-E-Z3svkpa7M/TdRM9dmDEzI/AAAAAAAABP0/1c8-ffP5xdc/s1600/WileySongSp%255B1%255D.JPG 13
The removal of the dike will occur during the spring time and
progress into the summer and finish in the autumn. These are the
most mild seasons so there will not be great tidal flows that could
damage the deconstruction/construction of the tide gates and dikes.
We will also look at tide charts to guarantee we are not working
when the tide is high.

Phase 1 Dump Truck: Phase 2 Dump Truck:
Traveling 10,000 ft for 1 cycle going at 10 mph (880 ft/min) = 11.36 min/cycle Traveling 18,040 ft for 1 cycle going at 10 mph (880 ft/min) = 20.5 min/cycle

Takes 5 min to load and 2 min to dump ( 11.36 min + 5 min + 2 min = 18.35 min / cycle) Takes 5 min to load and 2 min to dump ( 20.5 min + 5 min + 2 min = 27.5 min /cycle)

11.56 cu yrds/linear foot * 2,100 linear ft = 242,276 cu yrds 11.56 cu yrds/linear foot * 5,000 linear ft = 57,800 cu yrds

242,276 cu yrds / 12 cu yrds (truck load capacity) = 2,023 truck trips 57,800 cu yrds / 12 cu yrds (truck load capacity) = 4,816 truck trips

2,023 truck trips * 18.36 min / cycle = 37,142.28 min 4,816 truck trips * 27.5 min / cycle = 132,458.3 min

37,142.28min / 60 min/hr = 619 hrs 132,458.3 min / 60 min/hr = 22,075 hrs

619 hrs / 7 hrs work days = 88 days 22,075 hrs / 7 hrs workdays = 315 days

88 days / 2 trucks = 44 days (1.5 months) 315 days / 2 trucks = 157 days (5 months)

In order to determine the success and effectiveness of the project, certain monitoring methods and appropriate contingency measures would need to be put into place. One major
overlooked component of the monitoring process will also be the tracking of native plant propagation as well as identifying and treating invasive species in the area. Other components
to monitor and potentially amend would be water quality, hydrology, and the presence of wildlife.

1. Water quality would be determined and obtained with regards to quantitative measurements in pH, dissolved oxygen, and salinity. Other sampling methods may also be employed to
measure nutrient and macroinvertebrate availability, offering guidance in successfully establishing viable fish and wildlife habitat in the region. Some form of water treatment would
need to take place in addressing excess water pollution in the area from both natural and/or anthropogenic sources.

2. The hydrology of the Wiley Slough watershed would ultimately be the largest determining factor for the success of achieving natural hydrological processes in the area. By maintaining
close monitoring practices using GIS, and other mapping techniques, we would then be more informed on using any contingency measures such as dredging, or re-grading to restructure
and assist the establishment of natural water flows.

3. Monitoring the presence of wildlife in the region would also be a major consideration in determining the success of the project's objectives of reestablishing traditional salmon runs,
improving the viability of the habitat for waterfowl nesting or hunting, and more. Ultimately this would largely depend on the habitat requirement indicators present, with regards to
protected areas and forage availability.

Continual work would need to be done within the socio-cultural context of the project as well. Development of interactive and communal programs to enrich and empower local
community members to learn more about the natural area and project would foster more interests in the continued investment and future monitoring of the project.

The E-5 parking lot is located within the Union Bay Natural Area on the
edge of Lake Washington. The Union Bay Natural Area (UBNA) is the
largest remaining natural ecosystem along Lake Washington where the
aquatic and terrestrial systems meet and create wetlands. The goal of this
project is to recontour the flatness of the parking lot and allow the space
to blend back into the surrounding wetland ecosystem and restore

IMAGE: http://seattlebloggers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/union-bay-4.jpg
The proposed E-5 parking lot restoration site is a 3.16-acre degraded freshwater wetland
ecosystem located adjacent to UBNA and the shoreline of Lake Washington (Ewing 2010).
The E-5 parking lot has compromised ecology and environmental function in its current
state. The site is a rectangular plot with 2 to 6 feet of gravel on top of a soil capped

Hydrologic movement through the site is limited. There are a few potholes and small
divots in the parking lot that are seasonally filled with water. The eastern border of E-5 is
shared with UBNA and experiences some seasonal flooding but due to the topography,
the standing water does not make its way into the parking lot. The southern and western
portions of the site are within close proximity to Lake Washington and with careful
regrading of the site, E-5 could experience flooding from the lake. The hydrology of the
site is dependent upon the amount of precipitation received, the topography of the site,
and the flow of water from the surrounding areas. Restoration efforts could drastically
change the hydrology of the site which would be a significant factor in creating a wetland
Topographic conditions dictate the hydrologic movement through the site. The E-5 parking The northern boundary of E-5 is a gravel path that experiences a lot of traffic from the public
lot looks relatively flat but slightly slopes north. There is an elevation change from 23 feet through UBNA. To the west of the site there is a thin strip of trees and other vegetation that act
on the southern portion of the site near Lake Washington to 21 feet on the eastern and as a buffer between the parking lot and the University Slough. South of the site is Lake
northern part of the parking lot (Ewing 2010). This slight slope indicates that significant Washington and there is some existing vegetation between E-5 and the lake. To the east, the site
amounts of water on the site will drain to the north and to the east. Gravel substrate is is bordered by a UBNA.
conducive to high levels of drainage. Standing water on the site is likely to drain through the
gravel before the site experiences overland flow. With the soil cap covering the landfill Parking lot E-5 has minimal ecological function or communities present. There are no native
underneath the site, the amount of water that can be drained and the percolation of surface species in the parking lot but there are some invasive grass species dispersed throughout the
water will be altered. The drainage of water in E-5 is based off the soil type and the amount gravel surface. Other ecological interactions in E-5 are the temporary use of the parking lot by
and movement of water on the site. birds from surrounding areas but due to the openness and the limited ecological communities
present not much wildlife uses E-5.
There is currently no soil on-site. The parking lot is gravel and in order to establish a
successful freshwater ecosystem soil will need to be present on the site. Soil provides The local climate in Seattle experiences a Mediterranean-like climate with wet winters and warm
important functions like building structure, plant growth media, water holding, habitat for drought conditions in the summer. Annual average precipitation in Seattle is 34.1 inches with most
crucial microorganisms, the decomposition of materials, and other functions that are of the precipitation happening between October and March (U.S. Climate Data 2016).
pertinent to a functioning and self-sustaining ecosystem.
Site constraints of E-5 restoration are the depth at which the gravel can be excavated. The gravel
E-5 is a gravel lot located in an area with diverse surrounding land types from restored has to remain foot above the landfill and 2 feet of soil have to be on top the gravel, in total a 2
natural areas to highly developed areas. The larger landscape matrix of the project site foot buffer is needed to be between the surface of E-5 and the landfill soil cap. Another site
includes sports fields and stadiums, Lake Washington, gravel roads, patches of trees, the constraint is making sure that no toxic waste from landfill is exposed as this has the potential to
University Village Shopping Center, highly used 45th Street, and UBNA. be a real hazard especially with E-5s close proximity to the lake and UBNA.
As of right now, the surface level of parking lot E-5 is gravel, but our restoration proposal includes plans to excavate the majority of the gravel in order to
restore the area of parking lot E-5 and convert the space back into freshwater wetlands. The restored wetlands on lot E-5 will be vernal pools, meaning the lot
will be seasonally flooded in the winter and spring, but will be completely dry in the summer and fall months. Many vernal pools in the northwest are
connected, thus creating wetland complexes. Our hope is that the restored wetland on lot E-5 will be smoothly integrated into the surrounding wetlands in
the Union Bay Natural Area. Depending on the meteorological patterns of the year, the vernal pool wetland could potentially remain flooded year round, while
in years of drought the pool could remain dry year-round.

While the seasonal flooding and dry periods do not seem conducive to supporting life, the type of vernal pool that we are planning on creating on lot E-5 has
the potential to foster life for a varying number of plants and animals who will spend the dry season in the wetland as seeds, eggs, or cysts, and then grow and
reproduce when the ponds are filled with water again (EPA 2015). This wetland will also serve as a seasonal source of food and water during periods of
flooding for fowl. This type of wetland area is ideal for plants that can tolerate periods of drought and flooding. Unfortunately, we are limited in the amount of
nutrients we can provide for local flora through topsoil because we can only excavate the gravel on the sight within a foot of the landfill buried under the
gravel. We plan on laying 2 feet of soil on top of this gravel, giving the plants a 2 foot buffer between the landfill. Normally vernal pools lie on bedrock or a
hard clay layer in the soil that helps keep water in the pool (EPA 2015).

UBNA has long been manipulated and disturbed by human action. According to the UBNA
Management Plan, Lake Washington was lowered by about 9 feet due to the construction
of the Ship Canal and is now regulated by the Chittenden Locks. The drop in water level
exposed the subaqueous delta of the Ravenna Creek, allowing wetlands and corresponding
vegetation to grow and develop.

The site of the E-5 parking lot became a site of dumping in 1925 and became a formal
landfill over the years. The landfill was closed off to any incoming waste in 1966 and the
project was finished in 1971. The landfill was then capped with a required amount of at least
3 feet of soil between the waste and the surface. Over time, the topsoil collected toxic
sediments that has made it challenging to restore. This site has been attempted to be
restored before, but by using European pasture grasses instead of indigenous species.

Currently, one side of the E-5 parking lot is wooded wetlands and the other side is an open
wetland prairie. We expect that this project will be a positive impact and help support the
historical ecosystem within the Union Bay Natural Area.
IMAGE: http://www.mollyhashimoto.com/.a/6a00e553d7e72c88340154332ea7cf970c-pi

Project constraints are made from stakeholders and they usually change the direction of the project and can alter restoration activities or the intended project outcomes. Constraints
arise from user interests and are placed to help satisfy different wants for the land. Five stakeholder groups of E-5 that could impact the proposed restoration are the Washington
Department of Transportation, the University of Washington, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, university students and faculty, and members of the public including local birders.

The Washington Department of Transportation is one of the main stakeholders in E-5 because they are proposing the project to be done to help fulfill their wetland mitigation
requirements from the construction of the floating 520 bridge. Another stakeholder is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who oversee and implement the Clean Water Act including the
requirement of wetland mitigation. They will work closely with the Washington Department of Transportation to see that all of the precautionary steps are taken to be certain no
protocols are deviated from. The University of Washington is another key stakeholder, as they own the land on which the restoration is being done to. The university needs to be certain
that all of their desires for the land are met and they do not want to see the project mishandled or have trash/hazards input to the lake as well as making sure its faculty and students
will not be put in danger during construction . University students and faculty are another stakeholder group of E-5 since they use the pathway on the north end of the site. This
pathway connects the Center for Urban Horticulture to the rest of campus and is part of many students and professors commute. The fifth stakeholder in the E-5 restoration project is
the public. E-5 allows people using the trails or birdwatching in UBNA to access the path along University Slough, members of the public that may have interests in E-5 are birdwatchers,
people walking the trail, and other members of the surrounding area that use UBNA. Recreation is a big part of UBNA, and all of the stakeholders need to work together to be assured
that the land will be taken care of and that the ability to take part in their activities will not be hindered. An important aspect of a restoration project is being in communication with
project stakeholders to make sure the process runs smoothly and the restoration outcomes can satisfy multiple interest groups.


IMAGE:https://www.washington.edu/wholeu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/rsz_ubna_12.jpg IMAGE: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UGoSXhyMMJo/UJZ3CMscjoI/AAAAAAAAa4Y/XzNXHc_tQkY/s640/Union+Bay+Natural+Area+1011+098.JPG

In the early years there is a low likelihood of autogenic repair to the recontouring of the space. Due to the raising and lowering water levels, it is expected that a
team will have to tend to the space every few years to redistribute the contouring of materials. Although it is possible that as the vegetation grows and
strengthens in the restored space any required maintenance would become unnecessary.
Our team is limited with two options to restore the wetlands in UBNA. The first restoration option consists of excavating the current land deep enough so that
the site is equal to lake level. This would lower the current gradients so that a natural wetland would be established. Since the site is located on top of the
former Montlake Landfill, certain areas on the excavation site are too shallow and the landfill cap as well as waste material will have to be removed. This would
require us to ship the waste to a hazardous waste disposal site. Our site would then require a new cap over the exposed landfill, and then contoured to the
necessary elevations. Finally, we would install native freshwater marsh vegetation. This design option is very costly since we will need to remove and relocate
the waste from the old landfill. Once all the material from the site is removed, the lake water will then be able to flow into the newly made depression. This will
then create a natural freshwater marsh.

The second option is to create a seasonal freshwater marsh. This would require excavation of some areas in our site where the landfill cap is deep enough to
obtain the necessary depth for a marsh in the wetter seasons. During the winter and spring the excavated area would create vernal pools, with shallow standing
water. During the summer these pools would dry out and provide the right suitable environment to support vegetation. Parking lot E-5 is an area that has the
required depth to dig, since it has been replenished with gravel numerous times due to subsidence. This area also has similar soil to a natural Western
Washington prairie (Ewing, K). This allows us to plant native prairie plants in the areas that will not be submerged in water.

The conversion of the E-5 parking lot to a freshwater marsh and prairie habitat is very likely. In the Union Bay Natural Area and Shoreline Management
Guidelines, 2010 it states that the [E-5 parking lots] gravel surface is similar to the substrate of natural prairies, and hence the site has great potential for
becoming a restored South Puget Sound prairie ecosystem. Currently, our site is an asphalt and gravel parking lot that has limited to no vegetation and limited
wetland and prairie characteristics. However, the biggest restriction for our site becoming a freshwater marsh is the budget of the project. If our team decides to
authorize the first restoration option of excavating down to the level of the lake, this would be the best introduction for our site to become a freshwater
wetland. Unfortunately, if we end up removing waste material, this would dramatically increase the cost of the project and might not be feasible with a limited
budget. On the other hand, if we decide to just dig a depression to hold water seasonally this would create vernal pools. This would allow for a natural prairie
and wetland environment, with native plants to grow in the depression during the summers as well as shrubs and trees to grow on the banks of the depression.
Currently a vernal pool already exist in UBNA, called Shovelers Pond. Shovelers pond is a great example of what our site can transform into and gives more
belief for a high likelihood of success.

In order to carry out our site design, we will need access to backhoe loaders that will assist with the excavation component of the project. The relative
compactness and maneuverability of the machine will allow us to properly excavate to the contours of the landfill located under the gravel without
excavating too close to or hitting the underlying landfill. We will also need access to trucks to haul the gravel off the site.

We are planning on importing the soil to the site in order to create the 2-foot layer on top of the gravel, because nothing we are planning on excavating will be
useful for creating the layer. We will also need bentonite to seal the pond because the layer of soil we plan on laying on top of the gravel will be too porous to
maintain any type of wetland. The bentonite will synthesize the layer of hard clay-like soil that will be absent from our restored vernal pool on lot E-5. We
plan on using the blanket method by applying the bentonite to the soil directly before the pool is filled.

We will also need a variety of plants to populate the wetland that can tolerate full to partial sun exposure while also tolerating periods of drought and
flooding. Some suggested plants are Picea sitchensis (Sitka spruce), Spiraea douglasii (Douglas spirae), Carex nebrascensis (Nebraska sedge), Juncus
balticus (Baltic rush), Lonicera involucrata (twinberry honeysuckle), Frangula purshiana (Cascara buckthorn), Crataegus dougliasii (black hawthorn), Salix
spp. (Pacific and Sitka willow), Thuja plicata (western redcedar), Physocarpus capitatus (ninebark), Rubus spectabilis (slamonberry), and Carex stichensis
(Sitka sedge)(Stevens 1993).
In order to meet the site design requirements while staying within the
constraints outlined above, the mitigation design would need to emphasize the
importance of leaving landfill debris intact with a reduction in topsoil currently
present. Excavation will take place down to six inches of the surface of the
landfill material, followed by a layer of a bentonite membrane, and finally 2 feet
of topsoil. The wetted perimeter of the wetland will therefore be approximately
2.5 feet above the landfill material itself. Weve determined that given the
Lake Wash. Elev. conditions provided by the universitys digital maps, the
excavation volume of material removed would be insufficient to drop the
proposed site to adequate lake level depths by as much as 6-24 inches. A small
section of the southern portion of the site will likely be flooded, however, the
majority of the higher elevation sections will not be lower than lake levels. Data
provided by the Army Corps of Engineers on fluctuations of lake levels would be
more conducive to the fulfilling these objectives.

Calculating the averages from the cross sectional areas and the average relative
distances between the markers, an estimated volume of 210,000 cubic feet of
gravel and soil would need to be removed from the E-5 parking lot.

The next phase of the design will involve the reallocation of the gravel to
incorporate into developing a new walking trail towards the Center for Urban
Horticulture. This allocation would save a significant portion of the budget for
materials, while also fulfilling the need for a new walking trail. The location of
the new trail would circle the track field and link up to eastern portion of NE
Wahkiakum Lane, making as little impact on travel time for pedestrians as

Image: Built by Conrad Meinhold on Adobe Photoshop; image from google maps.

During the excavation of gravel we will need to perform the planting of native plants around the excavated areas. Seasonally, these areas will be filled with freshwater so
the plants will need to be placed in the correct elevation or they will not survive through the seasons. As we have stated above we will be planting Picea sitchensis (Sitka
spruce), Spiraea douglasii (Douglas spirae), Carex nebrascensis (Nebraska sedge), Juncus balticus (Baltic rush), Lonicera involucrata (twinberry honeysuckle), Frangula
purshiana (Cascara buckthorn), Crataegus dougliasii (black hawthorn), Salix spp. (Pacific and Sitka willow), Thuja plicata (western redcedar), Physocarpus capitatus
(ninebark), Rubus spectabilis (salmonberry), Fraxinus latifolia (Oregon ash), and Carex stichensis (Sitka sedge).
We will be placing these plants based on their typical water regime. The permanently flooded regime will consist of Picea sitchensis (Sitka spruce), Carex nebrascensis
(Nebraska sedge), and Carex stichensis (Sitka sedge). Plants in the permanently saturated regime will be made up of Picea sitchensis (Sitka spruce), Salix spp. (Pacific and
Sitka willow), Spiraea douglasii (Douglas spirae), Carex nebrascensis (Nebraska sedge), and Juncus balticus (Baltic rush). Seasonally flooded will include, Thuja plicata
(western redcedar), Salix spp. (Pacific and Sitka willow), Faxinus latifolia (Oregon ash), Spiraea douglasii (Douglas spirae), and Juncus balticus (Baltic rush). Finally, in the
seasonally saturated area the plants will include Crataegus douglasii (black hawthorn), Thuja plicata (western redcedar), Physocarpus capitatus (ninebark), Rubus
spectabilis (salmonberry), and Juncus balticus (Baltic rush) (Stevens 1993).

Image: Stevens, Michelle L. (1993)

Due to the nature of the design incorporating the use of existing gravel and earth materials to relocate the western portion of NE Wahkiakum Lane, the excavation phase
would need to be conducted before the relocation phase. Both the construction of the new trail and the replanting and preparation of the new wetland would coincide with
one another. The excavation phase will be initiated during low tides during the winter, when Lake Washington is artificially lowered, to avoid flooding during the phase. The
construction of the new trail would also need to be initiated as soon as materials are available from the excavation to avoid extensive disruption of normal student and
patron activities. Ultimately, a detour would need to be developed to remediate the issues associated with this as well.

During the project preparation, a collaborative design process has to take place and come into agreement. Then the gathering of materials and
people to carry out the work is needed. During the installation process continued communication between project stakeholders should be kept
while making sure the constraints and functional requirements of the project can be met. For the project site, making sure to keep the needed
gravel and soil buffer above the landfill material is an important to monitor.

After the installation of the project the site should be monitored to track its progression, and if needed the site should be maintained to keep the
site in a restored state. Post project installation, some activities to be done include making sure the soil levels meet the necessary depth above the
landfill material, removal of invasive species that colonize the site, replanting of native species, and monitoring of the hydrology of the newly
installed wetland.


The Marcellus-Shrub-Steppe Preserve is located 8 miles outside the city of

Ritzville, Washington, about 60 miles outside of Spokane (Schuller 1984).
The city came to be settled after being chosen to be a stop along the new
railroad development in the 1880s with promise of future growth. Due to a
large fire before the town had a proper fire department and the Great
Depression, the city became comfortable with remaining small and
maintaining an economy that was primarily dependent upon agricultural
practices. The proposed restoration site has 45 vernal pools and
shrub-steppe habitat that contain a number of threatened and rare plant
The Marcellus Shrub-Steppe Preserve is located along Interstate 90, outside the city
of Ritzville, about 60 miles southwest of Spokane. The property that is to be restored
is owned by the Nature Conservatory (TNC) and the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). The property contains 45 vernal pools and shrub-steppe habitat. We have
decided to restore only the larger vernal pools and the smaller ones immediately
surrounding them. It has been found that grazing the vegetation in and around the
vernal pools is devastating to the indigenous species, so the first obvious choice
would be to eliminate grazing. Because the surrounding area is surrounded by
agricultural industry with free roaming cattle that graze, we will also be fencing off
the chosen restored areas.

Vernal pools are shallow depressions that fill with water during rainy seasons to
create temporary wetlands. The seasonal variation between wet and dry creates a
very unique habitat that can support rare plant species. Perennials exist in the deeper
portions of the vernal pools because they stay moist for the longest period of time
and thrive in the saline and alkaline conditions. Annuals grow in the shallower parts
because of the greater variation of wet and dry conditions. There are additional plants
that flourish when the vernal pools are completely dry and benefit from the
conditions left behind from the wetter period. The vernal pools on site experience
dramatic seasonal changes.
The Marcellus Nature Preserve is composed of two distinct ecosystem types; a shrub-steppe and a vernal pool ecosystem. When intact this joint ecosystem provides unique land types and
environmental functions. The main function the vernal pools of Marcellus provide is important habitat for invertebrates, amphibians, and rare plant species (The Nature Conservancy 2016).
The presence of microbiotic communities that inhabit the vernal pools facilitate nutrient cycling, increase soil aggregation and the ability for the soil to hold moisture (Brown 1999). Other
functions of vernal pools include adding diversity to the shrub-steppe ecosystem by retaining water and allowing for unique species to use this resource. The second ecosystem type found
within Marcellus is shrub-steppe, shrub-steppe communities provide habitat and cover for small animals and birds.

Ecological functions are compromised when a system has been degraded. At Marcellus Nature Preserve factors that change the formation of vernal pools could impact the functions and
alter the environmental conditions of the ecosystem. Past disturbances to the vernal pool and shrub-steppe ecosystems arose from grazing and human related impacts from the
surrounding agricultural land use. Based off historical records, eastern Washingtons vegetation has not been under heavy grazing until more recently. Grazing affects the species
composition, functions and structure of an ecosystem. These effects can lead to weeds or invasive species becoming more easily established and a loss in the vernal pools cryptogamic
cover, lowering functions like nitrogen fixation, soil stability, and soil water retention by increasing compaction and removing the organic litter layer (Brown 1999).


Proposed restoration of the Marcellus Shrub-Steppe Natural Preserve would look to revert the ecosystem to conditions that were present before grazing and other degrading
practices took place. Under grazing conditions the species composition of the historical plant community was changed. Grazing reduced the biomass of prevalent species opening up
resources and space for new plants, most likely invasive ones, to grow (Brown 1999). The impacts of grazing to the historical ecosystem change the characteristics of the vernal pool
and shrub-steppe landscape and without any restoration efforts these ecosystems especially the vernal pools, that are localized and rare, are in danger of becoming lost in the area.

Different views and ideas from each stakeholder will create restrictions and limitations for the design project. These constraints emerge when the users and
community members voice their concerns and restrictions are introduced to satisfy the different interests. The stakeholders that could potentially affect the
project design include: the DNR, the Nature Conservancy, the Washington Natural Heritage Program, and the local farming community of Ritzville.

The main stakeholders for the vernal pools in Adams County are The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). These two
organizations and departments own the land that is designed to be managed. The DNR owns the land to the west of Suko Road, while TNC owns the land to the
east. The Natural Heritage Program, which is part of the DNR has classified the vernal pools on the DNR and TNC land for a Priority 2 Protection status, due to
the rare and threatened species on the site. The main priority for the two organizations is to remove invasive species and restore the sagebrush communities.
The Natural Heritage Programs main priorities are to: identify which species and ecosystems are priorities for conservation efforts, build and maintain a
database for priority species and ecosystems, and share the information with others so that it can be used for environmental assessments and conservation
planning purposes (Natural Heritage Program).

The local farming community of Adams County are dependant on their agriculture and farming for their local economy. However, the design of the wetlands and
vernal pools will require a buffer around the impacted areas. The class of the wetland will determine the spacing around the wetland and vernal pools. For
example, for minor development they want 125-[foot buffer] for Class I, 100 for Class II, 75 feet for Class III, and 25 feet for Class IV (Wentworth Shirley).
These buffers will limit the amount of area for the farmers cattle to graze, which could affect the amount of cattle they can raise.

Predicted levels of repair possible would largely depend on the relative exposure to moisture, based on the number of months that the vernal pools would retain
water, that the pools would experience. Given the level of complexity involved with the presence of both native annuals and perennials throughout the site, adequate
moisture during the growing season (April for the region of Ritzville) would be one of the largest considerations to address in the effective implementation of any
conservation plans.

Careful monitoring and research into past fire regimes and occurrences would also be critical in placing emphasis in preserving longer lived, endemic species that
require a more lengthy growth period, such Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush), as opposed to species that sprout immediately following fires and disturbances (ie.
Artemisia tripartita (three tip sagebrush)(Schuller 1984). Fires would ultimately have the potential to dramatically shift the ratio of existing native plant vegetation,
requiring greater maintenance and operational costs. Given the degree of aridity in the area as well, brush fires pose a substantial threat to the completion of
conservation goals.

Suppressing the presence of noxious weeds would be another critical component to gauge the level of repair possible at Marcellus. Centaurea maculosa (spotted
knotweed) is particularly prevalent in the northern boundary (Schuller 1984), and would need to be removed in order to retain the endemic species makeup of the
site, as well as remove nutrient and moisture sinks.

With the inclusion of a barbed wire fence, and subsequent removal of
grazing practices throughout the nature preserve, the likelihood of
autogenic repair would be greatly improved. Given that grazing
practices were traditionally the primary source of native plant
displacement and subsequent invasive colonization, the
implementation and enforcement of a no-grazing zone would have
significant impacts on the likelihood of autogenic repair in the area.
However, without adequate removal of invasive/noxious species, and
further research into the timing of planting (seen in figure 1) and
disturbances, it would be difficult to accurately gauge the overall
likelihood of autogenic repair moving into the far future. Ultimately, it
will depend on the deleterious effects of invasive species growth, and
the availability of adequate precipitation and growth windows for
native plants to propagate.

The main goal for the restoration design for the Marcellus Shrub-Steppe Natural Preserve is to remove the exotic species and to reinstate the sagebrush and the native plant communities.
The initial step to preserve the site is to eliminate grazing from the land, which will help restore the rare and threatened species. This requires fencing around the entire nature preserve.

The next step for restoration is to removal and suppression of the invasive and exotic species from the preserve. This could be done with slash and burn techniques in the region, which the
pre-European fire frequency was in the 15-40 year interval (Schuller). However, this could damage the existing rare species, as well as local farms and agriculture if the fire becomes
uncontrollable due to the dry shrubs. Another option would be manual removal, but this can be strenuous due to the area that the natural preserve contains.

With the removal of the exotic species, we will then need to plant native and rare species. We also need to plant both annual species, which are species that will grow in the shallower areas
of the vernal pools, and perennial species that will grow in the deeper and more moist part of the pools. Examples of some optimal plants include: Zone 1 (perennial species) Deschampsia
danthonioides (annual hairgrass), Artemisia ludoviciana (white sagebrush), Montia linearis (narrowleaf miners lettuce), and Epilobium paniculatum (tall annual willowherb). Zone 2
(annual species) Eleocharis macrostachya (pale spikerush), Artemisia ludoviciana (white sagebrush), Limosella aquatica (water mugwort), and Alopecurus saccatus (Pacific foxtail).

Maintenance and monitoring will likely be required for this restoration to be successful. After installing the fencing and native plants, the restored areas will likely need to be
monitored and maintained annually for the first 5 or so years to ensure that the plants are adapting and to monitor the presence of invasive species. The fencing may need to be
replaced every 10 or so years to continue to keep cattle from grazing within the reserve.

Our site design focuses on the the vernal pools located in zones 3 and 4 of the Marcellus Preserve. These pools include M1, M7, M11, M17, M18, D01a, D01b, D09,
D24, and D26. Of these pools, ponds D01b, D24 and D26 dry up completely in the four-month period of March through June, thus rendering them unsuitable to
plant life as they spend a short amount of time being both flooded and dry within a short time frame. Therefore, we will focus our replanting efforts on the
remaining pools, which will be broken up into two groups based on the patterns of water retention calculated based on monthly average precipitation and
evaporation rates (see attached files). The two groups are pools M1, M7, D09 and M18 (group 1) which lose some water over the four-month period but are never
completely dry, and pools M11, M17 and D01a (group 2) which maintain a consistent amount of water during the four-month period and fill the maximum storage
capacity of the pool. In these pools, perennials will be planted in the deeper areas of the standing water, meaning they will be located centrally in the vernal
pools. On the outer perimeters we will be planting annuals in the shallower areas and the areas subject to drying as the season goes on.

We will begin our restoration efforts with group 1 in March while the weather is conducive to collecting and propagating seeds on site. It is important to reseed
group 1 first in order to give the plants that will be standing in shallower water as the season goes on a chance to become acclimatized before the pond dries.
Group 2 pools should be reseeded within the four-month time period but it is less pressing that they be seeded right away because if the weather follows the
average pattern of years prior, the levels of the pond will not fluctuate meaning the conditions of the pool will not change during the reseeding and
acclimatization period. Our goal in the initial restoration project is to collect and propagate seeds from the site, then reseed groups 1 and 2 in their respective
order. As this is going on we are planning on putting up a fence around the area in order to discourage cattle grazing and trespassing (see attached map). We are
also planning on stemming the growth and presence of sagebrush around the areas surrounding the aforementioned vernal pools (see attached map).
Sagebrush should be controlled within the fenced in section shown below in the map of the site.


Findings based on these calculations:

-Ponds D01B, D24 and D26 are consistently losing water over the four month period of March through June and will dry out
completely, making them unsuitable for planting environments.
-Ponds M1, M7, D09 and M18 lose some water over the four month period but will never dry out completely. These ponds are
suitable environments for both perennial and annual plant species.
-Ponds M11, M17, and D01A maintain a consistent amount of water in the four month period, never losing any water volume. Plants
in these pools should be tolerant to standing water.

Task Follows Precedes
The sequencing and timing of events in a restoration project is
an important step in the planning process. Sequencing takes the
A. Remove invasives - D, E, F, G tasks needed in order to complete the project and it orders
B. Install fencing - D, E, F, G them by what needs to get done before another segment of the
project can begin.Timing is how long tasks take and when they
C. Gather native plant material - D, E, F, G should happen. Organizing the sequencing and timing of the
D. Install native plants A, B, C E, F, G project is needed in order to make a project schedule and start
getting the project under way.
E. Suppress/remove invasive regrowth A, B, C, D F, G

F. Post installation monitoring A, B, C, D, E - Tasks to be included in the planning of the Marcellus project
include removing invasive species, installing fencing, gathering
G. Post installation maintenance A, B, C, D, E -
native plant material, installing native plants, suppressing
invasive species regrowth, and post-installation monitoring of
the site. The tasks that are most sensitive to timing will bet the
gathering and installing of the seasonal native plants.



After the initial restoration project, the site will need to be monitored to prevent cattle grazing and trespassing by automobile and human foot traffic. Invasive
plants will need to be monitored and removed as they appear on site, while desired plants will need to be reseeded/ planted. The water levels in the individual
pools will also need to be monitored in order to adjust planting designs to best fit the patterns of the individual vernal pools.

Following the enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1973 by

Congress, continual recognition and support for maintaining healthy
estuarine systems became more and more prevalent throughout the United
States. Padilla Bay became one major example of this nationwide attention,
and lies in the Skagit River Delta region, approximately 60 miles north of
Seattle along the fertile Puget Sound lowlands. Designated in 1980 as the
nations 8th National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR), Padilla Bay
offers a unique and pivotal opportunity for multifaceted use by researchers,
wildlife, and community members. In partnership between the Department
of Ecology, NERR, and local community members, this multifaceted use gave
way to newly proposed boundaries to help restore wetland and agricultural
appropriations. The removal of key levees and tide gates, as well as the
installation of setback levees in specific locations, will aide in the
restoration of freshwater wetlands with an agricultural rotation in the
Padilla Bay region.
The Skagit River Delta area is home to a variety of wildlife. It is a prime location for
young Chinook salmon, waterfowl, birds of prey, some mammals such as deer and
beavers. The population of wildlife, especially the endangered Chinook salmon has been
decreasing due to human related activities in the delta. The vegetation is a mixture of
three different types of species: eelgrass, salt marsh, and macroalgae (See Table on next
page for plant species list). The soil is very fertile because of the nutrient availability
and topography, it collects a significant amount of sedimentation from the water
exiting the river and settling on the flat, shallow bottom of the bay.

Figure 1: Vegetation Map (http://www.padillabay.gov/vegetationMapping.asp)


Common Name Latin Name Common Name Latin Name

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Himalayan blackberry Rubus spp.

Western redcedar Thuja plicata Wild rose Rosa pisocarpa

Big-leaf maple Acer macrophyllum Red alder Alnus rubra

Oregon grape Berberis nervosa Canada thistle Cirsium arvense

Salal Gaultheria shallon Salt grass Distichlis spicata

Lyngbys sedge Carex lyngbyei Pickleweed Salicornia virginica

Tufted hairgrass Deschampsia caespitosa Gumweed Grindelia integrifolia

Dune wildrye Leymus mollis Seaside arrow grass Triglochin maritimum

Red fescue Festuca rubra Cattail Typha latifolia

Cheat grass Bromus tectorum Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinaceae

Vegetation from Padilla Bay NERR. 2008 47
We chose to approach the restoration project using proposed Alternative #3 and divide the site
into two separate zones, A (north zone) and B (south zone) (Figure 2). Zone A will have the dikes
removed, exposing the area to Padilla Bay and its tidal patterns. This is hopefully allow Zone A
to return to a natural estuary state. Zone B will be maintained for its current agricultural use.

Figure 2: Alternative #3
Prior to the estuary development in Padilla Bay, the bay was comprised of
extensive mudflats and eelgrass beds. Beginning in the 1860s and
continuing into the early 1900s (Telegraph Slough) tidal dikes were
installed that drained the land and prevented it from flooding in the future.
This installation effectively converted the estuary into agriculture friendly
land. Since the draining of the estuary and the elimination of the eelgrass
beds, salmon populations in the Padilla Bay area have declined. Eelgrass, a
perennial flowering underwater plant,serves as a shelter for juvenile
salmon, and as a source of food for them as the blades of the eelgrass are
covered in bacteria, and decaying plant and animal matter which attracts
different types of invertebrates that the salmon,in turn, feed on. The
elimination of the eelgrass has led to the destruction of habitat for juvenile
eelgrass (http://www.seagrassli.org/media_and_more/gallery/fauna_gallery/pages/Grazers%20on%20eelgrass.html)
salmon as well as the loss of a food resource, leading to a decline of salmon
presence in the area. Therefore, the diking of Padilla Bay in the 1860s has
led to a decrease in biological and plant life diversity in the area.
Salinity, turbidity, pollution, temperature, elevation, and tidal fluctuations are all constraints in this particular restoration project. To access the land to make
the desired alterations, there is the risk of damaging the land when heavy vehicles would have to cross it to remove materials.


Restoration of Padilla Bay would preserve the estuarine ecosystem which is declining at a rapid rate and is an important factor in salmon habitat loss. The
predicted level of repair possible to the southern portion of Padilla Bay is high, making it valuable and sought after land that is considered to be a,
tremendous opportunity for successful restoration (Riggs et al. 2009). Padilla Bay is a shallow estuarine system that used to be connected to the Skagit
River System before human development changed it into agricultural land that included installing levees. The installation of levees drained the estuary and
marsh ecosystems degrading the ecosystem and changing the flora and fauna that inhabits the area. With proposed restoration of removing parts of the
levee, the level of repair possible is good and reversion to marshland and estuary systems looks very promising.

The possibility of natural repair to the Padilla Bay ecosystem from converted farmland remains low without restoration efforts. The presence of levees that
disconnect the estuary from the Skagit River ecosystem physically keep the two systems from interacting. These levees are well established structures that may
erode over time but not to the degree that is needed for autogenic repair to take place. Restoration is needed in order to repair and bring function back to the
valuable ecosystem that has been degraded through the changes in land use.

Padilla Bay: http://www.recreation.gov/recreationalAreaDetails.do?contractCode=NRSO&recAreaId=3097

Four restoration options or alternatives have been suggested for the Padilla Bay project. Alternative 1 is considered to be no action. This would leave the Padilla Bay restoration area as
is, and it would remain agricultural and the farmland would continue to be drained and pumped. Since no restoration would be done, $2 million dollars would have to be reimbursed in
wetland restoration grants that were obtained. This option would keep the farmland where the land could be resold to farmers, WDFW could keep the land but lease it to farmers and get
income to pay off the grant dues, they could start a farming for wildlife program, or with the no action option WDFW could run a demonstration farm (Riggs et al. 2009).

The second alternative looks to divide the land into five sections to create five freshwater wetlands that include an agricultural rotation period. This option includes a smaller sixth cell or
stormwater management and the other five cells would vary in size and would divide up the 340-acre area. The freshwater wetland cells would be created behind the existing levee, and
would need concrete water control structures to manage the freshwater levels so it can be converted from wetland habitat to an agricultural area. These concrete structures would help
manage the wetland by using a technique called moist soil management to mimic the seasonal variations of water experienced in freshwater wetlands and to help establish a native
plant community. The agricultural rotation would be every 2-4 years and can be used as a site disturbance to set back the ecological succession of the site (Riggs et al. 2009).

Alternative 3 is the option chosen for this design and it includes partial estuarine restoration and two freshwater wetland/ agricultural rotation cells. The 340 acre- area would be divided
into 160-acre estuary area and a 165-acre area to be divided into two freshwater wetland and agricultural areas similar to the ones established in alternative 2. This option is a
combination design for multiple land uses that can produce multiple ecosystem types (freshwater wetland and estuary) and satisfy more stakeholders.

The fourth restoration alternative is full estuary restoration. This would convert the 340 acres of agricultural land to a tidally influenced estuary creating habitat features like salt marsh
plant communities, mudflats, and tidal channels (Riggs et al. 2009). Alternative 4 is the best option for restoring the estuary to wildlife habitat but it would be opposed by the local
agricultural community as a large area of land would be lost.
The decision matrix is a tool use to weigh out options and
compared them based on their importance to the project. A
scale of 1-5 was used where 5 is good for the project.
Alternative 3 was the design chosen even though it does not
have the highest ranking, alternative 4 would eliminate the
agricultural use of the area and would have opposition from
the farming stakeholders. Alternative 3 still ranks high as a
restoration option but it would satisfy more wants of the land
and more stakeholders.

After the initial restoration efforts, the site will require monitoring. We will also need excavation equipment and operators to remove dikes from the areas discussed in the site design plan.
No additional material will need to be imported in as the removed dike material will be recycled into the relocated levees. Additionally, we will need access to bare root eelgrass to assist
with erosion control and serve as a habitat for the salmon population we are hoping to restore.

The goal of the project is to: restore and protect the ecological functions and biological diversity within the Padilla Bay Reserve and the Puget Sound, implement and utilize the use of the
Reserve for science and stewardship to confront coastal management problems, and enhance the communitys responsibility and education of actions that affect the coastal communities
and ecosystems (Padilla Bay NERR 2008).

Our team has decided that restoration option alternative 3 would provide us with the best resources to achieve our goals. Alternative 3 consists of a partial estuarine restoration with two
freshwater wetland as well as agricultural rotation. This is a combination of alternative 1 and 4, which consist of no restoration and complete restoration of the agriculture lands. We
believe that the hybrid option of alternative 3 will satisfy most of the stakeholders as well as help the estuarine habitat.

To rehabilitate the natural habitat of the estuary at Padilla Bay, we have designed a multi-step approach that will focus on restoring ecological functions of the site. This multi-step
restoration approach would include actions such as: relocation of the tide gates, invasive species management, erosion management, and the removal and relocation of levees,
enhancement of riparian vegetation and buffers seen in figure 3. These actions will hopefully improve the environmental functions including: water quality, fish habitat, and reduction of
toxic inputs.
We split the Padilla Bay restoration site into five different sections seen in figure 2. Starting at the north, we reserved 15 acres that are set aside for future stormwater ponds. To the south is the No-Name Estuary
restoration site, which includes 160 acres. Divided by wetland buffer, the next area to the south is 110 acres of wetland/agriculture rotation. Divided by the Little Indian Slough, there is the Indian Slough Estuary
Restoration site, which is approximately 12 acres, and at the southern tip of the site is another 55 acres of wetland/agriculture rotation.

Phase 1:
At the 15 acres for stormwater ponds, we will begin the multi-step restoration approach with levee removal and relocation that will be located on the high ground to protect Bridgeview Way.To the south, on the
110 acres of wetland/agriculture rotation, we will remove a portion of the existing levee and install the tie setback levee into the preserved current levee. At the southern tip, we will excavate a segment of the
present levee and fashion a tie setback levee that will also be preserved into the current levee. On No-Name Estuary Restoration site and at the 110 acres of wetland/agriculture rotation we will remove all tide
gates and relocate the pump station and new tide gate. For both areas, the tide gates and pump station will be located more upstream on the No-Name Slough. The removal of the levees, tidal gates, and pump
station will allow for salt water tidal flows to enter the wetland and create an estuarine habitat.

Phase 2:
We will need adequate grading and dredging to have the proper elevation control of the land. This would allow for return of a low/high marsh habitat and prevent further channel incision/erosion, as well as the
reconnection of the creeks to their former floodplains (No Name Watershed Feasibility Study). In the restoration sites there are invasive species, such as smooth cordgrass, himalayan blackberry, and loosestrife.
We will need to manually remove these species. We will also need to plant native species such as:, Lyngby sedge ( Carex lyngbyei; eastern border/northern third), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata; transitional between
low and high marsh), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), bentgrass (Agrostis alba) (high elevation, southern portion) (Padilla Bay NERR 2008). We will obtain these species from reference sites, where the species are
known to thrive. Most of the species will be bareroots since they handle the incoming tides the best.

Phase 3:
Along the banks of No-Name Slough, Indian Slough, Little Indian Slough we will also create a wetland buffer
between the estuarine restoration sites and the wetland/agriculture rotation with a nominal width of 100.
There will also be 30 buffers where the agriculture wetlands border the sloughs. The buffers will contain trees
such as willows, red alder, Western redcedar, big-leaf maple as well as shrubs such as salal, skunk cabbage, and
salmonberry. Having a buffer surrounding the sloughs will shade the slough creating protection from predators,
as well as allowing Large Woody Debris (LWD) to help the water flow and erode the banks. LWD stimulates the
trapping of bed load and floating wood debris, creating a build-up in the channel and encouraging a natural
formation of side channels and bank overflow terraces, as well as creating perfect habitats for juvenile fish (No
Name Watershed Feasibility Study 2005). The buffer will also help filter out toxins that can enter the waterway
eventually entering the Puget Sound.

Phase 4:
Our group will design and construct bioswales alongside the adjacent roads. The bioswales will limit the amount
of biofiltration of stormwater that will help reduce the heavy metals and toxins entering the restoration sites
and wetlands/agricultural areas.

Figure 3


Following the removal of the dikes in the northern zones, close monitoring would need to take place to gauge the level of success of wetland reacquisition into
the area. This monitoring would also greatly influence any fluctuations in the timing of the release and capture of water behind the tide gates. Appropriate
depths will be measured at 50 meter spacings to develop a clearer average of changes to water levels throughout the region. Given the drastic changes
associated with water level rise and fall, wildlife presence and reaction to the changes will need to be closely monitored as well.

Some type of a preliminary screening of the behavioral patterns, as well as the number of individuals within each species, will need to be conducted before
restoration is to begin. This data will then be extrapolated and compared with post-installation data gathered by wildlife biologists. Although this may involve
greater constraints, this will ultimately provide a gauge of the type of influence that these types of projects have on estuarine-dependant species. Along with
the monitoring involved with the wildlife present at the site, the potential shifts in the agricultural practices of the area may be dramatically changed as well.

Given the sensitive process of increasing and decreasing the water level over potential agricultural areas, careful monitoring and regulating would need to take
place regarding farming practices as well. The careful use of integrated pest management would be strongly encouraged to reduce damage to the surrounding
sensitive habitats. As a result, regulations and guidelines regarding the use of any pesticides and herbicides will have needed to be thoroughly tested in both
field and laboratory testing before being employed at Padilla Bay.

Located in the Northwestern part of Seattle, the Ballard neighborhood includes West
Woodland, Loyal Heights, Crown Hill, Whittier Heights, Adams, and Sunset Hill
(Seattle Neighborhood Greenways). Ballard has been an area of rapid development in
recent years. Within the last ten years Ballard underwent a 24% increase earning a
spot as one of the top ten fastest growing neighborhoods in Seattle (Yoder 2015).
With increased development to fit the demands of the fast growth, the amount of
green or natural areas in Ballard has significantly decreased and been replaced by
large living complexes and retail establishments. Finding areas with the potential to
become restored within a highly urbanized area can be very valuable to the area but
the idea to create a green space is often not the first priority. Green spaces within a
city provide insects, urban wildlife, and the surrounding community with many
benefits. Including natural spaces in urban areas can lower and help manage stress,
improve conditions for respiratory health, and provide other mental health benefits
while also offering habitat, resources, and a path for migration to wildlife. The
associated benefits of green spaces in urban settings opens up the opportunity for
future restoration projects to take place.

The Ballard ecosystem is highly urbanized and has little natural elements. Most of the surfaces are paved
and Ballard has become the least forested neighborhood in Seattle. The ecosystem within Ballard is very
degraded and providing almost no ecosystem functions.

Hydrology of the area is dependent on the precipitation that is experienced and the topography of the
land. The paved surfaces and busy roads create conditions for polluted surface runoff. Hydrologic flow is
downhill and into storm drains located on streets.

Soil assessment in cities can be difficult because the landscape has been very altered and often the
natural soil material has been removed and replaced. In Ballard there are few spots where bare soil can be
observed. Most of the ground space is covered with cement, buildings, and residential or city owned grass

Few ecological functions are present within the urban landscape. The city trees, parks, and yards of
Ballard residents provide habitat and act as resources for the insects, birds, and small mammals that do Ballard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballard,_Seattle

live in urban landscapes. Ballards location makes it important for urban restoration projects to create habitat and
resources for wildlife to be able to travel through the city to surrounding areas that have desired
The surrounding matrix of Ballard includes Shilshole Bay to the west, Carkeek Park and Greenwood to the resources like Shilshole Bay and Puget Sound. Creating greenways within Ballard is also
north, Green Lake and Woodland Park Zoo to the east, Fremont located to the southeast, and to the important in stormwater retention and filtration to help keep some of the runoff from entering
south is the Hiram Chittenden Locks and the Ship Canal. the neighboring water bodies.
The greenway planning movement began in the 1970s when open space in urban areas began decreasing across the country. Taking up less space than
conventional parks, greenways serve as connecting paths between urban and suburban areas that provide a number of environmental benefits. Firstly, the
location of the proposed greenway runs parallel along NW 83rd Street and will connect Golden Gardens to the western end of Greenlake, allowing pedestrians
and bicyclists to travel between the two areas without encountering heavy traffic. A safe pathway for pedestrians and bicyclists encourages more
environmentally friendly travel, while also having the potential to slightly reduce carbon emissions in the area.

Greenways also help to better the air quality by providing ventilation in crowded urban environments. Often lined with trees and a variety of flora, greenways
help to absorb excess carbon dioxide, thus purifying the air in the immediate surroundings.

The pollinator pathway concept first came to fruition in 2008 and began in Seattle, Washington. Pollinator pathways cater to both the social and
environmental needs of a community. Pollinator pathways provide optimal condition for pollinators such as bumble bees, butterflies and moths, as well as
providing natural public works of art to the community. Pollinator pathways can forge connections between separate green spaces and can be easily interwoven
into established urban areas through use of curbs, sidewalks and roof tops. The flowering plants create a pollinator friendly environment as well as improving
the general aesthetic of an urban area.

Construction in Ballard began in 1852 when the first homestead claim was filed in a Duwamish community that would become future Ballard (Crowley). Following the initial settling of
Ballard came the fairly rapid logging and development of the area, prompting Thomas Burke to purchase 720 acres of land north of Salmon Bay (1). Later, in 1888, Burke and his railway
partner, Daniel Gilman joined with John Leary to create the West Coast Improvement company which played a major role in the real estate development of Ballard (1). Ballard continued
to rapidly develop as the railway system and streetcar services grew, causing development in Ballard to sprawl northwestward. By 1898, Ballard had declared itself the Shingle Capital
of the World (1). However, the rapid development of Ballard led to unsanitary living conditions and an inability, on the municipalitys part, to keep up with the fast growth of the town.
This led to the eventual absorption of Ballard into the Seattle municipality. In the span of 54 short years, Ballard went from a rural area populated only by the Xacho- absh, a Duwamish
community, to a highly developed town annexed by the city of Seattle.

Restoration in Ballard is tricky and complicated by land ownerships and different wants for land use. Urban communities have a diverse population of people in a small area, with a mix
of people comes different interests and stakeholders for the proposed restoration to take place. Stakeholders of restoration projects would be the owners of the land whether it be
the department of transportation or other government organizations, residential, or commercially owned. Owners of the land could be interested in creating a green space on their
land or they could have other priorities of how to use their land. Groups like Seattle Neighborhood Greenways or Seattle Pollinator Pathways who have an interest in restoring urban
areas would want to go through with restoring urban spaces whereas others may not. Members of the Ballard community are an important stakeholder in restoring greenways, they
can be influential in gaining support and gathering resources or funding for the project. Besides differences in opinions of land use an important constraining factor for green space
restoration in Ballard would be time, money, and the labor that would go into the installation and planning of the project.

Since Ballard is already an urban environment and fully developed, it will never be restored back to a natural habitat. However, within the
urban setting there are various options for ecological improvements. These ecological improvements include pollinator pathways and
greenways. Pollinator pathways are long pathways or corridors of native pollinator friendly gardens in planting strips that connect two green
spaces. In Seattle, a pollinator pathway already exists, stretching from 12th to 29th Avenues on Columbia St.
(http://www.pollinatorpathway.com/active-projects/the-first-pathway/). This pollinator pathway connects two green spaces, which includes
Seattle University Campus and Noras Woods. This full functioning pollinator pathway presents a perfect example of what a pollinator
pathway could resemble in Ballard, and provides us with high hopes for achieving a functioning pollinator pathway. In Ballard, there have
been two successful Greenways traveling along NW 58th Street (Image 1) and 17th Ave NW (Image 2). Greenways are streets that encourage
low traffic speeds and volumes. These streets also connect parks, libraries, schools, and businesses for the public that require safe routes
through the city (http://ballardgreenways.org/about/). Greenways also contain green infrastructures such as bioswales, community gardens, Image 2: 17th Ave Nw Existing Greenway - http://ballardgreenways.org/routes/
or street trees. With the information from the current greenways, we will be able to replicate the success of the present greenways.

Image 3: From Seattle Neighborhood Greenways - Safer, Calm, Residential

Image 1: NW 58th St Existing Greenway - http://ballardgreenways.org/routes/
Given the ecological impacts of an urban environment, including runoff and wildlife redistribution,
the likelihood of autogenic repair with regards to the environmental implications of each strategy
would be unlikely. Along with the growing needs of stakeholders that include many of the local
community members, the socio-cultural drivers that support these strategies would make any kind
of autogenic repair highly unlikely. The combination of the inherent disturbances created by the
urban landscape, and the needs of stakeholders would require some type of remedial action by the
responsible parties. Realistic and timely shifts and changes to the central Ballard area to
accommodate these goals would warrant meditated, and deliberate action.

For our project we have multiple options for ecological restoration to the Ballard area. These options include; greenways, pollinator pathways, green stormwater infrastructure,
modifications to private residential lots, and the creation of green spaces. However, some of these options are more difficult to execute in an urban environment than others. For
example, the creation of green spaces requires extra land, which is more complicated with the numerous stakeholders and obstacles. Others require permission to work on private
residential areas, which is another impediment for completing ecological restoration. As seen in Table 1. below, we have created a decision matrix based on the capabilities to complete
different restoration options. After completing the matrix, our group decided that creating greenways along with a pollinator pathway is the most beneficial for our design based on the
certain requirements listed below. See Tables 2. and 3. on the next page for the decision matrix for restoration site location.

Table 1. Decision matrix for development strategies


Table 2 & 3. Site Evaluation of Roads for Greenways & Pollinator Pathways

For the pollinator pathway, we will need to have a pathway or corridor that connects two green spaces. If we just have a green space with pollinator plants, this will only be identified as a
pollinator pocket. Along the pathway, there must be enough space to create planting strips. For the pollinator pathway along Columbia St. some strips are as wide as 12 ft, while others are
about 4 ft wide. We also need a variety of native plant pollinator species that can survive urban environments. They need to be able to survive sunlight during the summer and runoff during
the winter. Some well known pollinator species include:

Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Evergreen; mostly visited by bumble bees; requires partial shade to prevent scorching. "Pollinator Plants
Maritime Northwest."
Blue Blossom (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus) Fast-growing evergreen; prefers partial shade; establish from seed or cuttings; a host plant for the Pale Tiger
Swallowtail (Papilio rutulus) butterfly."Pollinator Plants Maritime Northwest."
Oregon grape (Mahonia spp. ) Evergreen; protect growth points at tips during pruning ; attracts long-tongued bee species, such as mason
and bumble bees. "Pollinator Plants Maritime Northwest."
Bigleaf lupine (Lupinus polyphyllus) Visited extensively by bumble bees and hummingbirds; prefers moist soils, a host plant for various blue
(Icaricia spp.) butterflies. "Pollinator Plants Maritime Northwest."
Common camas (Camassia quamash) Prefers moist soil, drought-tolerant after bloom; bulbs attractive to wildlife. "Pollinator Plants Maritime

Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Establishes fairly well from cuttings; extensively visited by small bees; a host plant for the Spring Azure
(Celastrina ladon) butterfly. "Pollinator Plants Maritime Northwest."
Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) Dioecious evergreen; male plants provide critical late-season pollen source for honey bees and native bees;
Vine maple (Acer circinatum) Prefers shade; primarily attracts mason and bumble bees; a host plant for the Pale Tiger Swallowtail ( Papilio
rutulus) butterfly. "Pollinator Plants Maritime Northwest."
Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) Perennial that is easy to grow; white flowers from spring to fall; drought-tolerant. "Native Plants for Pacific
Northwest Gardens."
Blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum) Perennial; blue blossoms spring to summer on grass-like foliage; great for rain gardens; drought-tolerant.
"Native Plants for Pacific Northwest Gardens."
Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Evergreen groundcover; pink flowers mid-spring to early summer; edible berries provide food for wildlife;
drought-tolerant. "Native Plants for Pacific Northwest Gardens."

The goal of the Ballard redesign is to
restore the neighborhoods ecosystem
services while improving the safety of the
streets. We propose the implementation of
a north/south greenway along 20th Avenue
NW, a greenway/pollinator pathway
combination along NW 83rd Street, and a
pollinator pathway along the roads and
train tracks along the shoreline that
connects Golden Gardens Park and Carkeek

There is already an existing greenway in the Ballard neighborhood that runs from east to west long NW 58th Street. According to the Seattle Greenways website, the purpose of these
greenways is to provide a safe connecting arterial road for pedestrians and bicyclists. Greenways improve safety in a number of ways; they have been known to reduce car cut-throughs in
neighborhood streets, slow traffic, provide an eyes on the street feeling, and provide green space in an otherwise urban area.

Pollinator pathways are a rather simple way to repurpose unused planting areas in a neighborhood to improve the areas ecosystem services. By either depaving or removing manicured grass
along a street and replacing it with fertile soil, native pollinating plants, and adding elements of a rain garden design. The idea is to select a street that connects two larger natural areas to
spread the feeling of nature through the city and to allow pollinators to successfully travel from one area to the other.

The first and most important part of the restoration project is the greenway/pollinator pathway that runs from east to west along NW 83rd Street from Loyal Way NW and Greenlake Drive
NW. This section of road connects Golden Gardens to the western end of Greenlake. This chosen pathway is beneficial for pedestrians and pollinators alike. People can safely travel parallel to
NW 85th Street, which contains a number of amenities and services, without having to encounter the heavy vehicular traffic it often contains.

Image: Step 1: Portion of the NW 83rd Street Proposal


This is also the perfect location for a coordinating pollinator pathway because it connects two large natural areas and the existing infrastructure would require little to no
alteration. The image above illustrates a section of the design between 14th Avenue NW and 10th Avenue NW and effectively conveys what the majority of NW 83rd looks like;
both sides of NW 83rd Street have a greenbelt between the walkway and the street. The grass on the greenbelts could easily be replaced with native pollinating plants
without having to depave any concrete. NW 83rd Street also contains a number of roundabouts with a section reserved of plants in the center, these are also included in the
pollinator pathway design.
The second installation of the restoration project is a
greenway that runs north/south along 20th Avenue NW
connecting NW 85th Street to NW Market Street. Both NW
85th and NW Market street are major roads within the
Ballard community that contain the neighborhoods
character as well as countless amenities and services. This
route would also intersect with the existing greenway that
runs east/west along NW 58th Street.

Image: Step 2: 20th Avenue NW Greenway Proposal

Step three of the Ballard restoration is the final proposed
installation for our project. It is maybe the least important and
last implementation. It is a pollinator pathway that runs along the
shoreline of Puget Sound connecting Golden Gardens Park and
Carkeek Park. These are two major natural areas in North Ballard
between the North Beach and Blue Ridge sections of the
neighborhood. This would support the already existing ecosystem
along the shoreline and help enrich the habitat in that area while
connecting the two parks.

Image: Step 3: Pollinator Pathway Along Shoreline between Golden Gardens Park and Carkeek Park

There would likely have to be annual maintenance executed by the city to keep up any signage postings or asphalt paintings along the greenways. The pollinator
pathways would hopefully be self-sustainable because they would include a variety of native pollinating plants that function all year long. There is the chance
that they would require some attention, but are a simple enough design that it is a task that could be performed by volunteers and/or near by community

IMAGE: http://www.ballardnewstribune.com/sites/robinsonpapers.com/files/imagecache/popup_image/images/wwwballardnewstribunecom/2014/08/1900-drainage-pic.jpg
With the conclusion of our restoration design book, we have gained insight on how to prepare design reports to create solutions for five realistic design
problems. The restoration designs included in our book cover diverse ecosystem types and required different approaches. The completion of the design reports
involved collaborative thinking, consideration of stakeholder land use, and addressing constraining factors in order to make our proposed design practical. From
the making of the reports we have had the opportunity to gain experience with actual restoration scenarios that have been completed or are to be completed in
the future. With these restoration design problems we have gathered the information and resources needed to work through the logistics and find solutions to
the presented design problems. Going through the restoration design process, we have been able to develop our skill set in preparation for working with and
understanding the complexity of the restoration practiced outside of the classroom.

Chang, E., Veeneklaas, R., Bakker, J., Daniels, P., & Esselink, P. (2016). What factors determine restoration success of a salt marsh ten years after deembankment? Applied Vegetation Science, 19(1), 66-77.

Garbutt, A. and Wolters, M. (2008), The natural regeneration of salt marsh on formerly reclaimed land. Applied Vegetation Science, 11: 335344. doi: 10.3170/2008-7-18451.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). (2008). Report to the 2008 Legislature: Wiley Slough Restoration Project: Recreation Mitigation Process.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2005). Wiley Slough Design Report (pp. 45-57, Rep.). WA.


Ewing, K. (2010). Union Bay Natural Area and Shoreline Management Guidelines, 2010. Retrieved on April 26, 2010 from https://depts.washington.edu/uwbg/docs/UBNAManagement/

Stevens, Michelle L., and Ron Vanbianchi. "Restoring Wetlands in Washington." (1993): 1-77. Web. <https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/93017.pdf>.

U.S. Climate Data. (2016). Climate- Seattle, Washington. Retrieved on April 28, 2016 from http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/seattle/washington/united-states/uswa0395

"EPA. "Vernal Pools." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 05 June 2016.

Brown, Wendy. (1999). Chapter 2: Literature Review. Evaluation of Cattle Grazing Effects on Floristic Composition in Eastern Washington Vernal Pools .

Google Maps (2016). Photograph.

Schuller, R. (1984). Marcellus Ecological Report.

Wikipedia (2016). Photograph.

Wentworth, Shirley. "Artificial Wetland." The Othello Outlook. Washington Newspaper Publishing Association, 28 Jan. 2008. Web.

"Natural Heritage Program." Natural Heritage Program | WA - DNR. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Web. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/natural-heritage-program

The Nature Conservancy. 2016. Washington: Ephemeral Pools Appear in Washington Sagelands. Web. Accessed May 11, 2016 from http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regionsg /northamerica/unitedstates/washington/explore/vernal-pools-in-washington.xml 77

Brown, Wendy. (1999). Chapter 2: Literature Review. Evaluation of Cattle Grazing Effects on Floristic Composition in Eastern Washington Vernal Pools.

Google Maps (2016). Photograph.

Schuller, R. (1984). Marcellus Ecological Report.

Wikipedia (2016). Photograph.

Wentworth, Shirley. "Artificial Wetland." The Othello Outlook. Washington Newspaper Publishing Association, 28 Jan. 2008. Web.

"Natural Heritage Program." Natural Heritage Program | WA - DNR. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Web. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/natural-heritage-program

The Nature Conservancy. 2016. Washington: Ephemeral Pools Appear in Washington Sagelands. Web. Accessed May 11, 2016 from http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regionsg /northamerica/unitedstates/washington/explore/vernal-pools-in-washington.xml

Padilla Bay. (n.d.). http://www.padillabay.gov/vegetationMapping.asp

Parks and Recreation. (n.d.). http://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/ParksAndRecreation/parks/padilla.htm

Riggs, S., Golner, D., Axford, J., Leschner, L.. (2009). South Padilla Bay Acquisition and Restoration Preliminary Design Report. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Telegraph Slough (www.pugetsoundnearshore.org)

Feasibility Study of Proposed Water Quality, Drainage, and habitat Improvement Activities in the No Name Slough Watershed, Skagit County, Washington (2005). Skagit Conservation District.

Padilla Bay NERR. 2008. Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan. Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Mount Vernon, Washington.


Crowley, Walt. "Seattle Neighborhoods: Ballard -- Thumbnail History." HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History. HistoryLink.org, 31 Mar. 1999. Web. 05 June 2016.


Seattle Neighborhood Greenways. Ballard. Web. 05 June 2016. http://seattlegreenways.org/neighborhoods/ballard/

Seattle Neighborhood Greenways. What are Greenways? Web. 05 June 2016. http://seattlegreenways.org/about/what-are-greenways/

"The Pilot: Seattle's Pollinator Pathway." Pollinator Pathway. <http://www.pollinatorpathway.com/active-projects/the-first-pathway/>.

"Pollinator Plants Maritime Northwest." The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (2015): Web. <http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MaritimeNorthwestPlantList_web.pdf>.

"Native Plants for Pacific Northwest Gardens." Native Plants Booklet 6.2 (2005): n. pag. Web. <http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/native_plant_booklet.pdf>.

Seattle Neighborhood Greenways - Safer, Calm, Residential Streets. Department of Transportation. http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/greenways.htm

A Network of Safe Streets. Seattle Neighborhood Greenways. http://seattlegreenways.org/blog/2016/04/29/6177/

Chris Ha Jessica Kuntz
Earning a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science and Resource I am planning on pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree in Architectural Design at the
Management with a focus on ecological restoration. I will be graduating Spring 2016, University of Washington. I am interested in studying sustainable building and
pursuing a career in environmental restoration in the Pacific Northwest. My development practices as well as historical Middle Eastern and Mesoamerican
contributions to this book include authoring the sections: Architecture. My contributions to this book include the impacts on historical ecosystem,
and likelihood of autogenic repair sections for the Wiley Slough chapter; environmental
- Wiley Slough : Constraints + Continuing Activities functions and estimated requirements sections for the Union Bay Natural Area chapter;
- UBNA Wetland Restoration : Site Design + Sequencing and Timing site design and continuing activities sections for the Marcellus Shrub- Steppe Preserve
- Marcellus : Predicted Level of Repair + Likelihood of Autogenic Repair chapter; impacts on historical ecosystem and estimated requirements sections for the
- Padilla Bay : Introduction + Continuing Activities Padilla Bay chapter; and environmental functions and impacts on historical ecosystem
- Ballard : Likelihood of Autogenic Repair + Range of Options (Table 1) sections for the Ballard chapter. Additionally, I wrote the introduction to the assignment
and did the final editing of the Marcellus Shrub- Steppe Preserve chapter.

Lian McGuire Conrad Meinhold:
I am an Environmental Science and Resource Management major and obtaining a minor in Majored in Environmental Science and Resource Management with a minor in Ecological Restoration.
Graduating in the fall of 2016, Conrad will then work towards a masters in Environmental Engineering to
Ecological Restoration. In the spring of 2016, I will be graduating from the University of
help him pursue a career in Environmental Consulting in regards to restoration and land management. My
Washington and will go on to do a 10-month service for AmeriCorps based out of the southern
contributions to this book include;
region of the United States. After I plan to pursue a job in the environmental field. My
-Site Design, Calculations, and Sequencing and Timing (including the Gant Chart) sections for the
contributions to this book by chapter include Predicted Level of Repair Possible and Range of
Wiley Slough chapter. -
Restoration Options for Wiley Slough. In the Union Bay Natural Area the Site Analysis,
Predicted Level of Repair and Range of Restoration Options sections, and created image for Site
Constraints, and Continuing Activities. For the Marcellus Shrub-Steppe Natural Area Preserve
Design and Gant Chart for Sequencing and Timing, as well as final editing the entire Union Bay
chapter the Environmental Functions, Impacts on Historical Ecosystem, and Sequencing and
Natural Area chapter. -
Timing sections. For the Padilla Bay project the Predicted Level of Repair Possible, Likelihood of
Constraints and Range of Restoration Options sections for the Marcellus Shrub- Steppe Preserve
Autogenic Repair, and Range of Restoration Options. Lastly for the Ballard chapter, I did the
chapter. - Site design
Introduction, Site Analysis, and Constraints portions of the assignment.
and Sequencing and Timing sections as well as the Current Vegetation on Site table for the
Padilla Bay chapter. - Predicted
Level of Repair and Estimated Requirements sections as well as Table 2 & 3 Matrixes for the
Ballard chapter.

Melissa Torres
Will be graduating from the University of Washington with a Bachelor's degree in Community,
Environment, and Planning with a minor in Urban Ecological Design (Landscape Architecture).
Contributions to the book are as follows: Wiley Slough: Introduction, Site Analysis, and
Constraints. Union Bay: Introduction, Site Analysis, Impacts on Historical Ecosystem, Likelihood
of Autogenic Repair. Marcellus Shrub-Steppe Reserve: Introduction, Environmental Functions,
Impacts on Historical Ecosystem. Padilla Bay: Site Analysis, Environmental Functions, Impacts on
Historical Ecosystem. Ballard: Site Design (including all maps), Continuing Activities, Sequencing
and Timing (included in Site Design).

Restoration Design Assignment 1
Salt Marsh Restoration
Assigned 31 March 2016


The Skagit Wildlife Area (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) includes areas that are diked and areas that are open to tidal action and river flows. Diking of Skagit Bay began with the construction of levees on individual farm plots in the
1870s. Dikes eventually became almost continuous, and today there are diking districts which are responsible for the maintenance of the levees.

Wiley Slough is located in the Headquarters Unit of the Wildlife Area. The Headquarters unit was purchased in 1948 for pheasant hunting. Apparently, as part of the management of the unit, 150-200 additional acres were diked in the 1960s and were
converted from tidal marsh to drained land suitable for growing cereal grains for wildlife.

Tribes on the Skagit had been in an adversarial relationship with both the Diking Districts and with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife for some time because of obstruction of salmon runs and diminution of potential salmon habitat.
WDFW has recently agreed to increase their emphasis on salmon habitat restoration, and funding has been made available by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and by Seattle City Light. A design team made up of representatives of the tribes
(Skagit River System Cooperative) and WDFW prepared the Wiley Slough Estuarine Restoration Design Report.

The Wiley Slough project proposes to convert the land diked in the 1960s back to open tidal influence. To accomplish this, the existing levee will be breached and a new levee will be created at the upland edge of the area. Tidal gates that keep salt
water out of Wiley Slough will be removed from their current location and new gates will be built upstream.

There has been a philosophical difference within the WDFW about converting waterfowl habitat to salmon habitat. The feeling is that ducks and geese are well-served by the existing configuration of the wildlife area, which serves waterfowl, hunters
and recreational users. The manager feels that the Skagit Wildlife Area is operated as a classic wildlife management operation as proposed and articulated by Aldo Leopold. Leopold wrote the book Game Management (1933), and is also considered
to be one of the founding fathers of ecological restoration. Converting from management for ducks to management for fish is causing a great deal of angst among the on-the-ground managers in WDFW.

Your Assignment

There is a plan for the conversion of the diked grain fields to estuarine marsh, open to tidal action. The outline of the plan is available online in the Wiley Slough Estuarine Restoration Design Report, WDFW. A good summary of the proposed project is
available in the Wiley Slough Restoration Project, Report to the 2008 Legislature, which is available on your class website in the section for Design Assignments. Look at the resources made available to you in class, on the class website, and at the links
mentioned in this assignment sheet. Find other sources of information if you can.

To help you evaluate the project, and perhaps to prioritize tasks, use the Design Element Checklist that has been handed out in class. Part of this design should be a completed Design Element Checklist for the site.

A major part of this project is the removal and reinforcement of dikes. Material from removed dikes can be used to replace or reinforce other dikes. Part of your design will be an accounting of how you intend to balance out cut and fill of dike material.

Be aware that WDFW has contracted with some farmers outside of the Skagit Wildlife Area to allow land to lie fallow during the winter to create forage for waterfowl. WDFW has also participated in the purchase of land near Padilla Bay to help mitigate for
the loss of recreational opportunities that will no longer exist at the Headquarters Unit.

Your completed assignment must include a map of the site, showing the area to be restored, amenities to be preserved or created, and dikes to be removed or added. You should also include a list of potential pitfalls and a discussion of how they should be

Here is what your design should include:

Make a list of major tasks (including levees, floodgates, etc.)

Divide the existing and proposed levees into sub-projects.
Propose sequencing of the tasks.
Calculate the length of each levee section that is to be added, reinforced or removed.
Calculate the volume of embankment that is to be removed, transported (different), and placed.
Determine how many truckloads are going to be needed to complete each sub-project.
Determine how much material is left over or will need to be purchased.
Complete a Design Element Checklist

Assume the existing dike cross section is defined by these dimensions:

15 wide at top
8 tall 86
3:1 side slopes

The new dikes will have these dimensions:

20 wide at top
10 tall
3:1 side slopes

For loamy soil, embankment, when excavated, expands to 1.15 times its bank volume. When re-compacted, it is reduced by the same ratio.

Online Resources
Earthjustice press release:
Skagit Wildlife Area, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
Skagit River System Cooperative:
Skagit Wildlife Area 2007 to 2012 Management Plan Updates:

Restoration Design Assignment 2
Freshwater Wetland Restoration
Assigned 14 April 2016


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

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

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

A possible way around excavating into actual landfill material is available because the landfill cap is exceptionally thick in several places. Parking lot E-5 is a gravel parking lot that has been maintained since 1970 by bringing in gravel to level it when it
subsided. It is estimated that 2 to 6 of gravel are under the surface of E-5. Excavation into this

gravel fill could be accomplished without encountering garbage or other wastes that would have to be taken to a special landfill.

The most common wetlands in UBNA are vernal pools. That is, they have water in them in the spring, but dry out in the summer. This is because the landfill cap holds water, and in Seattle we have lots of rain in the winter but a dry summer.

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

You might wonder if you can successfully employ the second restoration option of excavating down to the lake level. At this site that option is confounded by two constraints. First, you do not want to excavate down into the landfill material. Please
determine if you can excavate down to lake level without hitting landfill. Second, using lake water is complicated by the fact that the level of Lake Washington and Union Bay is artificially controlled by the dam at the Hiram Chittendon Locks in Ballard. In
winter, the lake level is lowered to an elevation of about 20. In summer it is raised to 22 ( = 2) http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/nws/hh/www/index.html# .(Click on Lake Washington Ship Canals, then Lake Washington Summary Hydrograph.
Locally this is described as reverse hydrology, because wetlands and lakes in this region normally have more water in winter and less in summer. The daily lake elevation may be found by clicking on Lake Wash. Elev. In addition, the University uses a
different elevation datum, so the University digital maps will show the water fluctuating between an elevation of 16.5 and 18.5 ( = 2).

(harmy = huw + 3.5)

Union Bay Natural Area and Shoreline Management Guidelines, 2010

The management guidelines for the Union Bay Natural Area have been revised, and are available on the University of Washington Botanical Garden website http://depts.washington.edu/uwbg/research/ubna.shtml . The guidelines are intended to update a
previous document, the Management Plan for the Union Bay Shoreline and Natural Areas published in 1994, and a second edition published without appendices in 1995 (known as the pink report). A copy of the 1995 document may be found on the Design
Assignments page of the class workspace under Pink Report.

Your Assignment

Develop a preliminary restoration design for creating a new wetland in UBNA at the current location of parking lot E-5. Be sure you understand the general problem or opportunity and can express the design problem using the idea/terminology of Functional
Requirements and Constraints. Identify at least five stakeholders or stakeholder groups.

The tasks below are intended to help you arrive at a recommended preliminary design that will meet the overall functional requirements and constraints that you have identified.

1. WashDOT has made borings at the proposed wetland creation site. The borings show the depth to landfill material. They have created a contour map of depths. The ground surface, however, is not flat, so you need to combine the depth map with a
standard contour map to determine the shape of the underlying landfill.

2. Why? Because removing landfill is expensive, and is a permitting nightmare. The plan is to excavate within six inches of the landfill material, place a bentonite membrane over the surface, then add two feet of topsoil. So the actual bottom of the wetland
will be 2.5 feet above the top of the landfill material.

3. You want to store as much water as possible in the wetland so that the growing season for wetland plants is as long as you can make it. It has been decided that, with the addition of three small levees, the water level in the full wetland can be raised to an
elevation of 21 to maximize storage. With this much storage, it is projected that the wetland will dry out by the end of May in most years

4. With all of the information that you have, draw at least five east-west cross sections that show the location of the existing ground surface, the 2.5 fill sandwich, and the top of the landfill material. Show the elevation 21 maximum storage elevation on
these cross sections.

5. Use the cross sections to estimate how much water can be stored in the wetland, in cubic feet. Also estimate the surface area of the new wetland in square feet.

For your planting design:

6. On a plan view (this is a view from above) show general areas of wetlands and of vegetation (called polygons).

7. For each polygon list 4 to 5 plants you would like to establish there. Use the flooding preferences shown in the tables from Stevens and Vanbianchis book on wetland restoration. You might have one polygon for a shrub buffer, another for emergent
wetland plants, another for summer dry wetlands, etc.

Stevens and Vanbianchi: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/93017.html

Depth to fill:

Surface elevations:

Surface elevations:

Restoration Design Assignment 3
Grazing and Vernal Pool Restoration
Assigned on 28 April 2016

The Nature Conservancy and the DNR both own land that is part of the Marcellus Shrub-Steppe Preserve (4714N, 11824W; T20N, R35E), about seven miles north of Ritzville, Washington
(http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/washington/explore/vernal-pools-in-washington.xml ). The DNR land is to the west of TNC land, separated by a gravel road. TNC land has been fenced since 1986 and degradation by
grazing prior to fencing is not noticeable. The DNR land was grazed in spring and summer months until recently. The dominant plant communities are Artemisia tridentata/Festuca idahoensis sagebrush and Artemisia tripartita/Festuca idahoensis sagebrush.
At the north end of the DNR parcel are large areas without sagebrush but with Bromus mollis and B. tectorum.

Vernal pools are scattered among both sites. The Washington Natural Heritage Program has designated them for Priority 2 Protection status, due to their having rare or highly threatened species or having intermediate rarity and threat but little
representation in the DNR Natural Area Preserve system. Vernal pools have water in them only part of the year and so are characterized by perennials in the deeper parts and annuals in the shallow areas. There are aquatics and plants that flourish as the
pools dry. Vernal pools have their share of rare species of vascular plants, but also have cyanobacteria, bryophytes, and lichens forming crusts. Vegetation zonation is common and often striking. The lower zones may have conditions that are more saline and

The Nature Conservancy has developed guidelines for the management of vernal ponds. Studies have found that grazed ponds at the Marcellus preserve have more weeds, and may have fewer rare species than ungrazed ponds. Removal of grazing was an
obvious first step in the management of such sites.

DNR Natural Area Preserves:


EPA website on vernal pools:


The Othello Outlook


Washington Natural Heritage Program

Adams County history


Your Assignment:

The DNR and TNC have reached an agreement on the management of the Marcellus site; DNR will manage it. The DNR portion now has more weedy species and fewer native species in both the sagebrush and vernal pool communities. Develop and propose a
goal for the entire combined site.
Delineate the sagebrush communities and separate them from the vernal pool communities. Develop plans to manage the invasive species in both.

The Artemisia tridentata (big sagebrush)/fescue and Artemisia tripartita (three-tip sagebrush) /fescue communities are both considered to be high quality examples of their type, even though the preserve is surrounded by wheat fields. Develop a vegetation
management and restoration plan for the sagebrush communities. These plans should include your tasks for augmenting or increasing the presence of native plants. How would you obtain plant material, increase it, plant it, and manage its growth?

The vernal pool communities, though they contain some weedy species, still have an excellent representation of vernal pool species. A problem with restoring vernal pools is that many species are unusual and for some of them seeds and living plants or
vegetative parts are not readily available. For this reason, the restoration is almost certainly going to have to be approached in a piecemeal manner, limited by the availability of propagules and also by the brevity of the growing season. Because of this, a set
of rules should be developed to govern the priorities for restoration; sites most likely to respond positively should be restored first. In the dry environment of Marcellus, this equates to the likelihood

that water will be present in a wetland and will stay around long enough for plant populations to develop. Remember, vernal pools have both annual species and perennial species, and this should be considered in the development of a prioritization scheme.

You should find out what requirements vernal plant communities have for survival. (Generally, time for an annual to germinate, grow and set seed, and for a perennial, time to mobilize reserves, generate photosynthesizing surfaces, accumulate storage
material, then set seed.) The Keeley and Zedler paper (see figure below) gives periods of inundation for common California vernal pool species. Adapt it for developing a priority system. A ranking method might be something like this:

Method for prioritizing the restoration of vernal pools based on frequency and duration of flooding.

0 Does not retain water

1 Retains water, but for less than one month during growing season.
2 Retains water for at least a month, but less than two months during growing season.
3 Retains water for at least two months, but less than three months
4 Retains water for more than three months

A ranking of four would indicate that plants would be most likely to have adequate moisture during the growing season (which starts in April in Ritzville). Restoration at such sites would be most likely to be successful because there is high variability in
precipitation from year to year. Lower rankings would mean that sites are less likely to be successfully restored. Devise a system like this for determining which sites should be restored first, which should be restored next, and which you should not bother
with. A hydrologic analysis would be necessary to determine which category an individual pond would fall into.

There are 45 vernal pools on this site, combining the DNR and TNC land. Create a schedule on a calendar for the restoration of the pools. Which pools would you start with? When would you start? What would you have to accomplish first? What would be
your first on-the-ground restoration steps? What would be your restoration activities in the first year in which you actually do site modification, conditioning or installation? How much could you get done in a year? What resources would you require? How
many people would you require, for how many days, and when? (This is asking for a pretty thorough discussion of what you will do the first year.)


1. On a map of the area, show the area that is of primary concern for the management of the sagebrush/bunchgrass communities.
2. Propose a management and restoration plan.
3. Outline a Bromus tectorum control strategy.
4. Make a list of tasks and include: where you would get plant material, how you would increase it, how you would install it, and how you would monitor and maintain it.

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


Table from Keeley and Zedler:

Restoration DesignAssignment 4
Agriculture Restoration
Assigned on 12 May 2016

When the Wiley Slough project in the Skagit Wildlife Area was about to be built, a farmland interest group approached the legislature and got the funding delayed. Their argument was that because of the project there would be lost recreation opportunities,
and the kind of habitat that was being lost could only be replaced by converting working agricultural land back to waterfowl habitat. The purchase of land to the north on Padilla Bay was thought to be a partial solution to mitigate this loss, and the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) were able to negotiate purchases from private land owners sufficient to put together a 340 acre parcel. The agricultural community, however, again
took exception to the idea of taking agricultural land and placing it in State ownership and restoring it. A summary report, outlining alternatives, was prepared with input from farming, hunting, diking and environmental interests.

The land in question is within dikes and lies along Padilla Bay. A popular recreational trail atop the dike attracts hikers, bikers and birders. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) owns most of the land, and the Washington Department of
Ecology (WDOE) owns about 90 acres. All of Padilla Bay falls within the Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS), and is managed jointly by NOAA and by WDOE; the Reserve has a visitors center located just north of the newly
purchased land. In the early 1990s, the NERR purchased one hundred acres of farmland within the 340 acres currently being considered for restoration. They have operated part of it as a Demonstration farm and have done research on salinity and pesticide
residuals on the farm. Apparently ownership of the land upon which the Padilla Demonstration Farm sits has passed to WDFW and WDOE, and it is now operated as the Washington Department of Ecology Demonstration Farm.

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

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

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

Information Links

Padilla Bay Shore Trail:


Padilla Demonstration Farm:


Drainage District agreement: (scroll to SEPA #06025)


Department of Ecology Shoreline Aerial Photos


Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland

Your assignment:

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

Three action alternatives have been proposed by the stakeholder committee. One alternative proposes that almost the entire site be converted to tidal marsh. A second alternative proposes that farming and flooding for freshwater wetland habitat be
practiced in cells of 50+ acres each. A third alternative looks like a hybrid of the first two. In the end, any decision that allocates any uses to the 340 acres will result in some unhappy and vocal stakeholders. You should back up whatever you propose by
showing why your chosen action alternative is superior to the other two and to the no-action alternative.

You must give your clients compelling reasons for accepting your proposal. Your solutions may be the best, or most economical, or provide the biggest bang for their buck. Areas proposed for restoration may be the most damaged and needing repair, or the
key to the success of the greater project, or the first step, or whatever you think is a good argument to support your choice as to what they should spend their money on.

Three hundred forty acres is a large piece of land. How would you propose to phase the restoration or other management uses of your parcel or parcels? What would be the first step, what would be the second step, etc.? What is your timeline; how long would
the total project take? How many individual restoration steps would it require? (A step might be all of the restoration that you think you could accomplish in one year.)

Take one project (that would be installed in a single growing season), and apply the design framework we have discussed. What kind of site modification and conditioning might be required? What plants would be specified and how would the installation be
scripted? What management program should be put into effect?
What would be a reasonable goal (of the clients) for the project? How would you translate the goal as functional requirements? What constraints would you need to consider? What are some design parameters that might be developed in order to meet the
functional requirements of the project?
Some options (examples):

1. Connect headwaters of Little Indian Slough, Big Indian Slough or No Name Slough with the forested watershed to the east.
2. Breach a dike at lower end of Indian or No Name Slough and create a salt marsh.
3. Continue to operate the farmland, but as green farms.
4. Focus on riparian corridors.
5. Create saltwater excluders (weirs) in the upper reaches of the sloughs.
6. Expand on the proposals from the No Name Slough improvement study.

Specifically, you need to

1. Consider all of the elements on your Design Element Checklist.

2. Clearly describe at least three alternatives (not including the do nothing alternative) for the entire 340 acre site.
3. Develop a decision making framework (we suggest using a decision matrix like we will discuss in class) and use it to recommend a preferred choice from among the alternatives you have described. You might have to anticipate
results from research that is needed to fully implement your decision making scheme. Be very clear where you are anticipating research results justify your estimations or predictions.
4. Very clearly (in detail) describe your recommended alternative.
1. What the area will be like once it is restored.
2. How you intend to restore / manage it.
5. Use Project Planning tools:
1. Make a list of restoration tasks.
2. Sequence them (which need to occur before subsequent tasks can be started).
3. Estimate task durations.
4. Draw a network diagram.
5. Prepare a project schedule for the first years activities.
Restoration Design Assignment 5
Urban Restoration
Assigned 26 May 2016


Ballard is an area in northwest Seattle, at least part of which was a separate town until 1907, when the city annexed it. For the purposes of this assignment, Greater Ballard will include other neighborhoods, including West Woodland, Sunset Hill, Loyal
Heights, Whittier Heights, North Beach, Olympic Manor, Crown Hill, and Blue Ridge. These inclusions result in a land area that is approximately 3.6 miles from north to south and 2.0 miles from east to west. Ballard is bounded on the north by Carkeek Park,
on the west by Puget Sound, on the south by the Ship Canal, and on the east by Phinney Ridge. For many decades, Ballard has been known as a neighborhood with few trees. Although the average canopy cover in Seattle is 23%, the cover in Ballard is less than
10%, and in parts of Ballard less than 6%.

In 2015, Theresa Yoder completed her MEH project, which was a survey of the Ballard area for restoration and enhancement opportunities. She points out that Ballard has become the second fastest-growing Urban Village area in Seattle, trailing only
Belltown. With a great increase in population density, the value of green spaces increases for a number of reasons. Real estate values, physical health and general enjoyment of ones surroundings are a few of the things that are improved by the proximity of
green areas. Environmental services are also important (improving habitat, water and air quality, and hydrologic control.)

Yoder walked Ballard and studied maps. She had interviews with city government land managers. She reviewed public records. In the end, she divided potential restoration sites into these categories:

Wooded lots
Existing parks
Street ends
Unused City Light substations
Public schools

Private property

Some possible alternatives that are not included in the surveyed sites include the Green Stormwater Infrastructure in Ballard. Installations like raingardens for capturing stormwater runoff at the source, and SEA Streets, which capture stormwater in
vegetated street rights-of-way, are part of this infrastructure. A second possibility is the modification of private property, mostly in residential lots, to Certified Wildlife Habitat. Institutions like the National Wildlife Federation provide guidance on how to
attain this certification.

Assume that a newly formed nonprofit organization, Restore Ballard, has raised $1 million to begin restoring ecosystems in Greater Ballard. Assume also that the sources of funding include the state DFW, Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, Green
Seattle Partnership, Seattle Public Utilities, the Bullitt Foundation and Social Venture Partners. These organizations environmental interests are loosely as follows:

DFW Habitat
Neighborhoods Community involvement
GSP Restoration
SPU Stormwater attenuation
Bullitt Innovation
SVP Social equity, education
The aim of the Restore Ballard organization includes being able to raise another $3 million, a large portion of which coming from those same organizations, based on the successful outcomes of work performed with the initial $1 million.

The $1 million was raised to do restoration projects so that will ultimately be the overarching outcome on which Restore Ballard is judged.

Parcels of land may be restored from their current condition (brownfields, abandoned commercial sites, residential lawns, parks, schoolyards, etc.), to ones that provide greater ecological services. They may be restored so that they replace lost ecological
services (provision of habitat, air or water quality improvement, or hydrologic control), or augment the services provided by remaining natural areas (they may act as corridors, stepping-stones or buffers).

Your assignment
Your job is twofold:
One, come up with a general rationale for the restoration of available sites in Ballard, then develop a methodology for determining 1) which functions are most important, and 2) which sites are most important.

Two, prepare a pre-design for one of your top three sites that can serve as an example of exactly how Restore Ballard will be approaching their restoration projects.

Regarding the first part of your job, as a hypothetical example, suppose that it is discovered that there are heron rookeries near Salmon Bay on the south boundary of Ballard, and in Carkeek Park to the north; but there are no adequate heron nesting or
resting sites between these two locations. Would it be valuable to have such habitat? Are there places where it could be created? As a second, non-hypothetical, example Seattle is the site of a Pollinator Pathway, which runs one mile east from the Seattle
University campus to Noras Woods, a forested woodlot in the Central District. The pathway is 12 wide and is a collection of pollinator friendly gardens built in planting strips. Are there sites in Ballard for a project like this?

To accomplish part one of your job your team must

1. Decide what is most important for restoration, connectivity, and environmental support in Ballard.
a. use a decision matrix to prioritize your choices.
b. make sure your work reflects the likely aims of the Restore Ballards funders.
2. Use another decision matrix to evaluate the sites that are available for restoration. In deciding on weighting, you might want to consider how well sites
a. fit in with the overall goals that you have come up with, and
b. how intrinsically valuable each site is. Some examples of ways to determine the importance of a single site include things like:
i. Size
ii. Connectivity with other sites
iii. Proximity to areas of high population density
iv. Isolation from other sites
v. Current quality of a site or ecological functions performed.
vi. Proximity to areas of high environmental value (shoreline, wetland, riparian areas, habitat)
vii. Ability to perform a desirable function (act as buffer or corridor, for instance)
c. support goals and aspirations of Restore Ballard
To accomplish the second part of your job your team must

1. Use the two decision matrices to select a site

2. Develop a predesign for the site that will reflect favorably on Restore Ballard

a. Overall public image and reputation

b. Image with existing funders

c. Reputation among other key stakeholders

d. Predesign generates excitement within the Restore Ballard organization

e. Will lead to successful project implementation that further advances the four items (a-d) above