april 2009 20 year forest anagement plan · sustain a vibrant urban life. in 2005, the cascade land...

A p r i l 2 0 0 9

20-yeAr Forest

MAnAgeMent PlAn

AcknowledgmentsIn 2004, the Green Seattle Partnership established a new method of evaluating and managing urban forests. This effort set the stage for engaging the public in ongoing stewardship of public natural areas and was expanded into the cities of Kirkland and Tacoma with the formation of the Green Kirkland Partnership and Green Tacoma Partnership. We modeled the Green Redmond Partnership on these programs, fine-tuning it to address the needs of Redmond’s community. We are grateful for the generosity of these earlier programs in sharing their experience with us, as well as the input and dedication provided by Leslie Batten (Cascade Land Conservancy), Kim Dietz (City of Redmond, Planning), Peter Holte (City of Redmond, Public Works), Chris Tolonen (City of Redmond, Parks and Recreation), and all of the community members and City staff who supported the program in its infancy.

City of Redmond, Parks and RecreationCraig Larsen, DirectorGregory Byszeski, Deputy DirectorDave Tuchek, Park Operations Assistant ManagerTeresa Kluver, Park Operations Supervisor

Cascade Land ConservancyJohn Floberg, Vice-President StewardshipAra Erickson, Green Cities DirectorNorah Kates, Green Cities Project AssociateKatie Cava, Sydney Funsinn, and Ben Scott-Killian, Green Cities Project Associates

Data CollectionDennis Dart, International Forestry ConsultantsJesse Saunders, International Forestry Consultants Matt Rourke, International Forestry Consultants

Graphics and MapsDean-Lorenz Szumylo, Cascade Land ConservancyTed Hitzroth, International Forestry Consultants PhotographsLeslie BattenNorah KatesTeresa KluverBenjamin Scott-KillianKen Wong

EditingDiane Sepanski

PrintingHeidi Hettich

Table of Contents

ExECutivE SuMMaRy �� 1

intRoDuCtion �� 2

Why We Need a GreeN redmoNd PartNershiP �� 3BeNefits of a GreeN redmoNd PartNershiP �� 4

i� thE ChaLLEnGE: a thREatEnED uRban FoRESt �� 6

redmoNd’s UrBaN forest �� 6the sUstaiNaBle forest �� 6the threats �� 7

ii� thE SoLution: thE GREEn REDMonD PaRtnERShiP�� 11

oUr VisioN �� 11oUr Goals �� 11oUr strUctUre �� 12

iii� iMPLEMEntation �� 17

fieldWork �� 18commUNity �� 36resoUrces �� 39

iv� aDaPtivE ManaGEMEnt �� 46

moNitoriNG �� 46resoUrces distriBUtioN �� 49rePortiNG aNd shariNG kNoWledGe �� 49

v� REFEREnCES � �� 50

aPPEnDix a: DiStRibution oF tREE-iaGE CatEGoRiES in EaCh PaRk �� 51

aPPEnDix b: nEaR-tERM anD LonG-tERM StRatEGiC PLan anD bEnChMaRkS �� 52

aPPEnDix C: SitE-SPECiFiC inFoRMation FoR PRioRity PaRkS �� 54

aPPEnDix D: PubLiC inPut �� 77

Green redMond PArtnershiP20-yeAr Forest MAnAgeMent PlAn

Green redmond PartnershiP

�

Executive SummaryThe Green Redmond Partnership is building a sustainable network of healthy urban greenspace for the benefit and enjoyment of current and future generations by bringing 1,035 acres of Redmond’s forested parkland into active management over the next 20 years. Although this is an ambitious task, it is crucial for the health of our forested parklands and our city, and it is only possible with the help of an engaged and empowered community.

In 2007, the City of Redmond and the Cascade Land Conservancy formed a partnership to help make Redmond’s vision of a sustainable, healthy forest a reality. We were inspired by the continued successes of the Green Seattle, Green Tacoma, and Green Kirkland Partnerships to work toward this vision.

Redmond’s forested parklands face the same kinds of pressures and problems as many urban forests, including fragmentation of greenspaces, an invasive-dominated understory that inhibits native species from regenerating, a declining tree canopy, and inadequate resources for natural-area management and restoration. These pressures diminish the benefits provided by these valuable urban forests, such as reduced stormwater runoff, improved water and air quality, attractive communities and increased property values, greenhouse gas reduction, habitat for native wildlife, and improved quality of life.

Our vision is a city with invasive-free, sustainable, forested parklands. Redmond’s urban forest will be supported by an aware and engaged community in which individuals, neighborhoods, nonprofits, businesses, and city government all work together to protect and maintain their valuable public resources.

We are estimating that it will cost approximately $5.4 million to implement the Green Redmond Partnership through 2028. Although this is a high number, the cost of effectively managing these lands solely using paid crews would be far more expensive – and would not ensure long-term success or community “ownership.” Working side by side with city agencies, volunteers will leverage an additional $2.9 million in value for the Partnership over the course of the project.

Since the program was adopted by the City Council in December of 2007, the Green Redmond Partnership has been working with the people, organizations, and city departments interested in active natural-area management and stewardship in Redmond. These groups will help carry this plan into the future. We hope that the Green Redmond Partnership will be a model for the future management of the many additional acres of valuable urban natural areas in our city and in other cities like this one.

20-Year Forest manaGement Plan

�

Invasive Plants Native PlantsHimalayan blackberryRubus aremeniacus(R. procerus, R. discolor)

Bigleaf mapleAcer macrophyllum

English ivyHedera helix

Black cottonwoodPopulus balsamifera

Scots broomCytisis scoparius

Red alderAlnus rubra

Bindweed Convulvulus arvensis (Morning-glory) (Calystegia sepium)

Douglas-firPseudotsuga menziesii

Reed canary-grassPhalaris arundinacea

Western red cedarThuja plicata

English HollyIlex aquifolium

Western hemlockTsuga heterophylla

IntroductionRedmond’s wealth of open spaces, parks, and greenbelts make our neighborhoods active and vibrant, improve property values, and help define our community. Much of this natural space is forested natural area. Our urban forests provide numerous “green services” that benefit the entire city – they clean the air, filter the water, hold stormwater, and prevent erosion. They provide habitat for urban wildlife and give us natural public spaces to enhance our neighborhoods.

Historically, development was the largest threat to natural areas. Public agencies, land trusts, and

nonprofits worked to reduce this threat by purchasing and conserving open space. Many of these properties were set aside to allow nature to take its course with the goal of minimizing human impacts. We are quickly learning, however, that urban natural areas face unique pressures, and that passive management is often inadequate to maintain a high quality of environmental health. Invasive species, litter, pollution, changes in surrounding land use, and fragmentation reduce the forest’s ability to thrive within cities. Urban natural areas are disappearing, and with them go critical services such as the reduction of stormwater runoff and absorption of greenhouse gases.

Table 1: Plants referenced in the plan


�

Why We Need a Green Redmond PartnershipWith a 2008 population of approximately 51,300 people and anticipated growth of around 14,400 more people (a 28% increase) by 2022, Redmond could soon be a drastically different place than it is today (Washington State Office of Financial Management and Redmond’s Comprehensive Plan). One of the challenges facing our city is how to accommodate this growth while maintaining a strong economy and exceptional quality of life. A large portion of this growth is foreseen to be concentrated within the downtown and Overlake urban centers, so there will be a need for higher-density housing, including condominiums and multifamily developments. Since these types of developments often result in less personal access to open space and the natural environment, it is of the utmost importance to protect and enhance Redmond’s current abundance of parks and open spaces.

Additionally, urban developments such as condominiums, townhouses, and office parks are considered more desirable when they are conveniently located (meaning accessible by bike or by foot) near parks and natural areas. Homes with views of urban forests can have up to 5% higher property values than homes that lack views of forest amenities (Tyrväinen and Miettiner 2000). This measurable value is due to the fact that greenspace is an important element of livable, attractive communities. Parks, trails, and greenways give people who live in cities recreational opportunities and a connection to nature that helps sustain a vibrant urban life. In 2005, the Cascade Land Conservancy launched the Cascade Agenda, a 100-year vision for conservation and economic growth in the Pacific Northwest, with a central focus on building livable urban communities. With its attention to urban forested parkland, the Green Redmond Partnership will play a key part in meeting that goal.

The Green Redmond Partnership aims to bring 1,035 acres of Redmond’s forested parkland into active management over the next 20 years. Although this is an ambitious task, it is crucial for the health of our forested parklands and our city, and it is possible with the help of an engaged and empowered community. We have

The dominance of nonnative plant species, such as Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, English ivy, Scots broom, and bindweed, is a major cause of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation in urban forests (Pimentel et al. 2000; Soule 1991). These invasive weeds lack natural population control (e.g., predators, diseases) and are capable of rapid reproduction; they can quickly blanket the understory and prevent native plants from reseeding (Boersma et al. 2006). At the same time, invasive vines such as English ivy climb into treetops, where their leaves can block light from reaching the tree’s leaves, and the weight of their trunklike vines can topple trees. Without native plants in the understory, habitat and food supply for native wildlife is greatly reduced, and the next generation of native tree canopy is lost. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that a significant portion of forest canopy in the Puget Sound region is now composed of relatively short-lived, mature bigleaf maples and red alders coming to the end of their life spans. As these trees succumb to age, new seedlings are not present to replace them, resulting in a loss of forests over time.

Our city’s natural areas require our intervention to reverse this trend and prevent major habitat and ecological service loss in Redmond. To comprehensively assess the conditions of Redmond’s forests, assess agency coordination and capacity, promote community participation, and establish the long-term planning needed to accomplish this, the City of Redmond and the Cascade Land Conservancy partnered to develop a 20-year, citywide forested parkland restoration and stewardship program known as the Green Redmond Partnership.

Redmond’s parks have a variety of needs specific to urban natural areas, including restoration, long-term maintenance, and monitoring. Meeting these needs might mean removing invasive species, planting natives, watering, mulching, or visiting the site to check for invasive regrowth. We refer to all of these activities as active management, acknowledging that caring for urban natural areas requires a dynamic, hands-on effort to counteract the negative effects of these areas’ surroundings.

whAt is Active mAnAgement?


�

already seen the success of the Green City Partnerships in Seattle, Tacoma, and Kirkland, and together we are establishing one of the largest urban forest restoration programs in the nation.

Benefits of a Green Redmond PartnershipThe benefits of caring for Redmond’s urban forests are as clear as the need to do so. Urban forests give us a higher quality of life (Dwyer et al. 1992), provide us with many ecological services, and the ability to enjoy nature close at hand. They help to keep our air and water clean, provide habitat for native wildlife, and make our communities more livable and beautiful.

Forested parklands contribute to a sustainable, livable city by providing greenbelts, which increase adjacent residential property values, benefiting both landowners and the city through increased tax revenue. Also, as citizens are encouraged to live more densely within Redmond, amenities such as parks and greenbelts make the City more desirable.

In 1998, American Forests analyzed the Puget Sound region’s urban forests. Its study revealed that trees in our region removed 38,990 tons of air pollution — a service that was valued at $166.5 million. The study also showed that these trees created a 2.9 billion cubic foot reduction in runoff, a service valued at $5.9 billion (American Forests 1998).

Forested parklands also help clean the air and combat global warming. All trees can capture carbon dioxide and help remove soot and other pollutants. Trees absorb carbon dioxide as they grow through the process of photosynthesis. They store the carbon in the woody mass of the tree, and release oxygen into the air. Urban trees in Washington State are responsible for the sequestration of more than 500,000 tons of carbon per year (Nowak and Crane 2001). Each acre of healthy, mature Western Washington forest could be responsible for the storage of more than 300 tons of carbon, which translates to the removal of over 1100 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (Smithwick et al. 2002). Conifers, specifically, can also remove 50 pounds of particulate pollutants from the air per year (Dwyer et al. 1992), which has been correlated with reduced

incidence of asthma in children and other related respiratory health issues in people of all ages (Logvasi et al. 2008).

While invasive plants such as ivy and blackberry also carry out photosynthesis to sequester carbon and create oxygen, they are shorter-lived and contain less biomass than mature conifers. This makes them less effective at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it. Additionally, they often do not supply adequate habitat for local native wildlife, and are much less effective at providing other “green services” that healthy native Northwest forest communities provide.

• Become a Forest Steward• Volunteer to remove invasive plants• Volunteer to plant native plants• Volunteer to maintain the restoration sites• Get your neighbors to participate• Help with publicity and marketing• Take photographs of the sites and volunteer events• Help with database and administrative work• Help raise money for the Partnership

how cAn you be A pArtner in the green redmond pArtnership?

Green Redmond Partnership volunteer


�

Benefit How Urban Forests Work to Improve Our Cities

Reduce Stormwater Runoff

Tree canopy reduces the rate at which rain falls to the earth. Water enters the ground more slowly under trees and is better absorbed and filtered into groundwater than when it runs off nonporous surfaces. Since conifers and other evergreen plants grow year-round, more water moves up from the ground, through plant tissues, and into the atmosphere as water vapor. The amount of water in the top 2 feet of the soil is reduced, leaving more room for additional rainwater to flow into the soil. (Geiger 2002, Saunders 1986).

Improve Water Quality

Plant roots absorb water, much of which is full of pollutants in an urban environment. Some pollutants are stabilized by plants through metabolism. Others are trapped in woody tissues and released only when a tree decomposes. Forested buffers around streams have been shown to reduce sediment and nutrient pollution levels (Osborne and Kovacic 1993).

Reduce Erosion

As the canopy of trees slows the speed of rain falling on the earth, rainwater has less energy to displace soil particles. Soils under a canopy and the thick layer of leaf litter are protected from the erosive energy of rainwater (Xiao et al. 1998).

Increase Property Values

Homes that border urban forests may be valued at up to 5% more than comparable homes farther from parks (Tyrväinen and Miettiner 2000). Forested parklands provide residential properties with an adjacent natural area for walking and passive recreation activities such as bird-watching.

Improve Air Quality

Plant leaves absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen through photosynthesis. The surfaces of leaves trap airborne dust and soot (McPherson et al. 1994).

Make Communities More Attractive

Vegetation provides visual relief from the built environment. Trees and stretches of parkland can soften the angular edges of buildings, while the natural tones of bark and foliage are easy on the eyes. Trees are known to be the most important factor in influencing the perception of a community’s aesthetic value (Schroeder 1989).

Combat Climate Change

Trees absorb carbon dioxide and store the carbon in woody tissues, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Urban forests have the capacity to lower energy consumption in urban environments by lowering ambient temperatures and to create microclimates conducive to air movement. Lowering energy consumption reduces electricity use and the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from power plants (Nowak and Crane 2001).

Provide Wildlife Habitat

Native wildlife have unique requirements for food and shelter. Although raccoons and crows adapt well to urban environments, many native species do not. They require a variety of plants and multiple layers of canopy to forage and nest. Healthy urban forests under restoration have been demonstrated to increase species diversity (Ruiz-Jaén and Aide 2006).

Buffer Noise Tree canopy dampens sound by intercepting sound waves (Herrington 1974).

Table 2: Ecological and social benefits provided by urban forests


�

I. The Challenge: A Threatened Urban ForestNatural areas throughout the Puget Sound region are being threatened by decades of invasion by aggressive nonnative species. In many urban areas, the only thing left is an unsustainable condition in which native trees and other vegetation are killed off and cannot grow back on their own. The result is what biologists call an ecological “dead zone,” buried by ivy, blackberry, and other invasive plants.

Redmond’s Urban ForestRedmond’s Parks and Recreation Department manages over 1,200 acres of forests, wetlands, streams, shorelines, and buffers. From the 2 acres of woods next to the playground at Meadow Neighborhood Park to the vast forested trails of Watershed Preserve, Redmond’s publicly owned natural areas range from small to large and are broadly dispersed. These natural forested areas provide habitat for aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals, and maintain natural ecological processes within a highly developed setting. Surrounded by the city’s built environment, each acre’s contribution to water quality, air quality, and stormwater control becomes even more crucial. Natural areas maintain distinct ecological communities that are becoming increasingly rare in urban areas.

Natural areas also give residents opportunities for recreation using trails, viewing wildlife, participating in interpretive educational and cultural programs, reading signage, or simply observing their surroundings to learn about their environment and the local natural history of their city.

For the purposes of this management program, we consider forested natural areas to be portions of public parks with greater than 25% tree canopy that are not mowed or landscaped. Areas of parks that include ball fields, playgrounds, beaches, orchards or open fields provide important open space benefits but are not considered appropriate for forest management. Marymoor Park, which is owned by King County, is not managed by the City of Redmond and was not included in this plan. Out of 1,200 total acres of natural areas, Redmond’s City-owned forested natural areas cover 1,035 acres in the care of the Parks and

Recreation Department, roughly 11% of the city’s total area. Although these natural areas are fragmented and broadly dispersed, they help define the landscape of our city.

The Sustainable ForestHistorically, large, long-lived conifer forests dominated the Pacific Northwest. These trees included Douglas-fir, western red cedar, grand fir, and western hemlock. Conifer forests covered much of the landmass and extended throughout the Puget Sound region. Early settlers first disturbed these natural areas when they cleared the land for development or views, channelized and piped streams and seeps, and drained or filled wetlands.

Today, some of these cleared areas have been recolonized by short-lived, fast-growing native deciduous species such as bigleaf maple, cottonwood, willow, and red alder. With a healthy seed bank in the soil and without further disturbance, Douglas-fir and western red cedar eventually reestablish and move the forest back to a conifer-dominated condition. This process, known as succession, typically takes about 100 to 150 years in the Pacific Northwest, where we have ideal growing conditions for trees and plants.

The problem arises when human-generated disturbances prohibit the regeneration of the native forest. The Green Redmond Partnership aims to remove the invasive plants blocking the growth of native trees and understory and replant the understory with native shrubs and trees, allowing native trees to form the

1,035 acres of public greenspace managed by the Parks and Recreation Department have 25% or greater tree canopy. These areas make up Redmond’s forested parklands, the focus of the Green Redmond Partnership’s 20-Year Forest Management Plan.

This is the equivalent of slightly less than 9 Redmond Town Centers, 3 Microsoft campuses, or 800 football fields.

how lArge is 1,035 Acres?


�

overstory. We use the historical forest condition of the Pacific Northwest as the reference habitat type for restoring and maintaining Redmond’s forested natural areas.

A healthy urban forest in Farrel-McWhirter Park

The ThreatsForests in urban areas face unique pressures and problems that require specific attention. There are five basic problems preventing urban forests from sustaining themselves as native habitat:

• Fragmentation

• Invasive-dominated understory

• Native species struggling to regenerate

• Declining canopy

• Inadequate resources for natural-area management and restoration

FragmentationRedmond’s forested natural areas are widely dispersed throughout the city due to residential and commercial development. Fragmentation is a problem common to urban environments and occurs when contiguous natural areas are split and divided, often by development, landscaping, sports fields, and roads. This heightens pressures on natural areas within parks by decreasing their internal area and increasing human impacts through use. Many of Redmond’s natural areas are isolated from each other and lack connectivity

through greenbelts or connecting corridors. The increased exposure to outside influences often results in habitat loss and degradation. A greater proportion of edges increases susceptibility to an area’s encroachment by invasive species from landscaping on neighboring residential areas, which can quickly escape into parks. Because of this unique pressure on urban forests, management of these areas is distinct from that of large swaths of rural forests and requires continuous vigilance against the spread of invasive species and other edge effects.

Invasive-Dominated UnderstoryInvasive plants now outcompete native understory plants in many of Redmond’s natural areas. Aggressive, nonnative shrubs and vines cover the ground, blocking sunlight from and competing for nutrients with the native species. Robust Himalayan and evergreen blackberry bushes spread along the ground in large thickets, and their seeds are dispersed by birds to new locations. Invasive blackberry grows densely, choking out native plants and destroying native habitat for wildlife species. Blackberry thickets are especially aggressive when establishing themselves along creeks and gulches, which are contained in a significant portion of Redmond’s parks. Currently, blackberry is the worst offender, but English ivy is also present and beginning to take hold.

English ivy can kill a healthy deciduous tree within twenty years by spreading up from the understory into tree canopies. Ivy can easily spread from a neighboring

Blackberry overtaking the forest at Westside Park


�

residential landscape into a nearby park, where it will become a serious problem, as we have seen in many other cities throughout this region. Once ivy becomes established, an intense investment of time and resources is required in order to remove it. Since English ivy is in the early stages of blanketing the forest floors and trees in Redmond, we have the opportunity to remove the existing early growth, and prevent its further spread in the parks.

Other invasive species such as English holly, herb Robert, and Scots broom also grow in the understory, crowding out ferns, shrubs, and other native plants. The native understory is an important food source for native Pacific Northwest wildlife and provides much-needed cover and shelter from predators and the elements. As invasive species begin to dominate the understory, the diversity of food and habitat available throughout the seasons is diminished. While some animals, such as rats, can live and even thrive in the dense monocultures of blackberry and ivy, quality habitat for most native wildlife is degraded by invasive species.

Stream banks blanketed with blackberry displace full native riparian vegetation that provides dissolved oxygen to the water and enhances groundwater recharge. Lack of riparian tree cover also decreases shade along creeks, causing the water temperature to rise. These altered conditions impair water quality and overall suitability of salmon habitat in Bear Creek. The lower section of Bear Creek that runs through Redmond, including Bear Evans Greenway and Bear Creek Park, has been identified by the Washington Department of Ecology as an area in need of riparian reforestation to reverse salmon habitat degradation (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008).

In addition, environmental benefits such as storm water retention, erosion control, and carbon sequestration are greatly decreased when invasive species displace complex communities of native vegetation that have grown together throughout this region’s history. Without preventing the spread of invasive species, the result is a dying urban forest overrun with sprawling thickets of blackberry and engulfed in ivy.

Native Trees Struggling to RegenerateNative tree canopy regeneration—especially of conifers—is greatly limited in Redmond’s parks and natural areas for several reasons. The landscape-scale loss of trees due to cutting and development for residential and commercial purposes has left a limited seed source for native trees. At the same time, invasive plants are reducing native tree regeneration by outcompeting or smothering those tree seedlings that do grow. Ongoing urban pressures on natural areas, such as development, landscaping, and clearing for views, trails, and solar access, all play a significant role. By addressing these issues, the Green Redmond Partnership will help the process of native tree regeneration move forward.

Declining CanopySeveral factors contribute to the loss of Redmond’s forest canopy in parks and open spaces. Compared with the region’s native forest composition, deciduous trees make up more of Redmond’s forest canopy than is normal in a healthy Northwest forest. These early-colonizing species help establish a forest in a disturbed area, such as after the logging activity that occurred throughout the Pacific Northwest in the late 1800s to early 1900s, and again in the mid-1900s. Deciduous bigleaf maples, cottonwoods, and alders now compose over a third of Redmond’s forest canopy. Under natural conditions, as deciduous trees begin to die off, they are typically replaced by longer-lived conifers.

The high proportion of mature deciduous trees in Redmond’s urban forests means that there will be a pronounced decline in tree canopy in the future. In many areas, the conifer seed bank has been lost through past logging and development. Many of the deciduous trees — both native and nonnative — are nearing the end of their natural life span. As they die, more sunlight is allowed to reach the ground surface, resulting in perfect growing conditions for aggressive invasive species to flourish. The loss of overstory canopy allows invasive plants to become the dominant species in many areas of Redmond’s forested natural areas, inhibiting the growth of saplings. Without intervention to ensure that enough young trees are present in the understory


�

to make up the next generation of canopy, the natural death of these deciduous trees could lead to a loss of a third or more of Redmond’s urban forest canopy.

Additionally, the early removal of vegetation along many streams and wetlands resulted in a complete loss of native species cover. Many streams are now buried under a canopy of invasive species such as blackberry, ivy, or reed canary grass. The loss of native vegetation along our waterways results in significant impacts on stream temperatures and water quality, and a negative influence on aquatic species, including the much- revered and threatened salmon.

Inadequate Resources for Natural-Area Management and Restoration

In the past, resources for natural-area management were limited. The idea that natural areas could take care of themselves discouraged managers from allocating sufficient funds for planting native species or removing invasive plants. Urban natural areas all over the Northwest were left to benign neglect under the assumption that they were self-sustaining and without the understanding that they were susceptible to changing conditions and outside influence. This passive management has directly led to the current problem of declining health in unsupported urban forests.

Figure 1: If forested parklands are not restored


10

To reverse this trend, we need to invest heavily in the active management of publicly owned trees and greenways. Natural succession cannot occur without a conifer seed base and healthy understory, both of which are currently missing or greatly impaired. trees are now recognized as city and community assets — or infrastructure — and should be maintained as such with attendant planning and budgeting� The level of need exceeds current staffing and funding.

Current StaffingThe Park Operations Division currently has 28 full-time employees and approximately 25 to 30 seasonal employees responsible for operations, maintenance, and administration of Redmond’s park grounds, facilities, and many of Redmond’s landscaped areas. Of these employees, approximately 3 full-time and 4 seasonal people hold positions specifically related to natural-area stewardship, including urban forestry and trail maintenance, in addition to work on street trees and leaf removal. The Natural Resources Division of the Public Works Department has 2 full-time employees who are dedicated to restoration and stewardship of riparian areas, many of which are located within Park properties. These positions need to be supplemented with community involvement in order to adequately address the additional needs of restoring and maintaining Redmond’s urban forested areas.

FundingThe City of Redmond’s Urban Forestry work program currently operates with a budget of approximately $300,000/year. This covers maintenance and management activities for trails, street trees, support facilities, restoration-related activities, and support to volunteers.

Additionally, Redmond’s Tree Fund is managed by an interdepartmental team composed of staff from Parks and Recreation, Planning and Community Development, and the Natural Resources Division of Public Works. This fund is available for planting trees, planting preparation, and also saving existing canopy trees threatened by invasive species. Projects must be on public land, and not supplemental to any existing budget or part of any Capital Improvement Project.

Volunteer projects have received funding from the Tree Fund in the past.

Much of the funding that the Natural Resources Division uses for stream buffer restoration and volunteer events comes from the Stormwater Fund, which is maintained by a standard fee levied on all Redmond residents and businesses as a fee per impervious unit. It is managed by Natural Resources and can be used for stormwater issues, outreach and education, planning, research, or maintaining water quality related to stormwater.

Occasional grants for natural-area restoration are available from organizations such as the King Conservation District, Conservation Futures, Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition, Washington Department of Transportation mitigation projects, and the King County Department of Natural Resources. While most of the grant funding is adequate for specific projects, these are not stable, long-term funding sources that will allow Redmond to carry out a continuing stewardship program.

Community InvestmentVolunteerism in natural areas ranged from 800 to 1,100 hours annually before the inception of the Green Redmond Partnership. These volunteers have pulled invasive plants, picked up litter, planted native species, and helped with other maintenance tasks in Redmond’s parks and natural areas. At the estimated volunteer value in Washington State, $19.53 per hour, this is a significant leverage to current funding in Redmond.

However, with 1,035 acres of forested natural areas to manage, invasive species growth is quickly outpacing these efforts in many areas of the city. Volunteer hours must significantly increase if we are to reverse the decline of Redmond’s forests over the next 20 years. A citywide network of information and resources must be made available to support a growing volunteer base. With long-term community investment, our forested natural areas can be sustained long into the future as high-quality capital assets.


11

II. The Solution: The Green Redmond Partnership

Our VisionOur vision is a city with invasive-free, sustainable, forested parklands. Redmond’s urban forest will be supported by an aware and engaged community in which individuals, neighborhoods, nonprofits, businesses, and city government all work together to protect and maintain their valuable public resources. The urban forest is a significant part of Redmond’s green infrastructure.

A sustainable forest will contain a multiaged canopy of trees and a forest floor alive with native species that provide habitat to a diversity of native wildlife. If we take care of it, our urban forest is an important asset that can serve the community in many ways. Forest growth will build soil, improve air and water quality, retain stormwater, and help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Trails through our natural areas will offer the cultural and recreational benefits necessary for a livable city.

We were inspired by the continued successes of the Green Seattle, Green Tacoma, and Green Kirkland Partnerships to work toward this vision. In 2007, the City of Redmond and the Cascade Land Conservancy formed a partnership to help make Redmond’s vision of a sustainable, healthy forest a reality. Since the program was adopted by the City Council in December of 2007, the Green Redmond Partnership has been working with the people, organizations, and City departments interested in active natural-area management and stewardship in Redmond. These groups will help carry this plan into the future.

Our GoalsTo make our vision a reality, the Green Redmond Partnership will work toward the following goals:

• Actively manage all 1,035 acres of Redmond’s public forested natural areas by 2029 by removing invasive plants and replanting native trees, shrubs, and ground cover, attending to past plantings, monitoring for invasive regrowth, and providing long-term maintenance.

• Build community capacity by teaching restoration practices to volunteers.

• Create a Forest Steward program to help coordinate active community leaders for each forested area.

• Create and implement a public involvement plan to educate and engage the community in stewardship projects.

• Establish resources to sustain the program for the long term.

• Identify and conserve additional forested natural areas that provide important ecological and public benefits.

• In the future, extend the program to nonforested natural areas such as emergent wetlands and shorelines.

• Educate citizens and landowners about the value of trees on private property as an important component of Redmond’s green infrastructure.

The Green Redmond Partnership is building a sustainable network of healthy urban greenspace for the benefit and enjoyment of current and future generations.


12

Our StructureAfter years of restoration work by a few city staff and enthusiastic, yet sporadic, volunteers, it became clear that development of a citywide program would be necessary to adequately manage all of Redmond’s forested parklands. Based on the experience of the Green Seattle Partnership, this section describes the model for the future structure of the Green Redmond Partnership, illustrated in Table 3.

Our structure will support thousands of community volunteers, City and nonprofit staff, and paid crews who will implement the Green Redmond Partnership by performing the work needed to achieve our goals. In the first years of the Partnership, program staff will take on most of the planning and decision-making roles until the program becomes established enough to form a management team and an executive council. All three program areas (fieldwork, resources, and community) must be represented in decision-making and planning.

In the early years, extra attention should be paid to the latter two program areas in order to build a volunteer base, spread awareness, and secure funding and other resources needed for the duration of the 20-year program. As resources and community support become established, more staff time will be dedicated to the fieldwork component, especially for volunteer management and coordination of the work done by Forest Stewards and contracted crews.

Support staff enable the implementation work by coordinating resources and facilitating communication across the Partnership. The Management Team includes representatives from support staff directly responsible for creating work plans, tracking accomplishments, and overseeing the general direction of the program. The Management Team is divided into three committees: fieldwork, community, and resources. These will be made up of paid staff and contractors working in tandem to implement each program area. Partnering

Figure 2: If forested parklands are restored


13

organizations, such as Cascade Land Conservancy, and future funders of the program will provide resources to the program not available through the City of Redmond.

The creation of an Executive Council is important for the long-term success of the program. Providing oversight, especially budget and funding oversight, and garnering community support will be key roles of the Executive Council. If the program will continue to be funded primarily through the Parks and Recreation Department budget, a formal Executive Council may not be necessary, as higher-level decision-making may be done by program staff. If extensive public funding or corporate sponsorship will be incorporated into the funding plan in the future, the Partnership may benefit from a more formal Executive Council structure, which could include representatives from major donors and local corporate sponsors, along with the Mayor’s Office, Parks and Recreation Department, and Cascade Land Conservancy.

All of this work will be structured to provide resources

and support to on-the-ground field implementation, undertaken by community volunteers, Forest Stewards, nonprofit and commercial field crews, and Park Operations’ field crews. Without a solid structure for the Green Redmond Partnership, the fieldwork will not be as successful, efficient, and organized as is necessary to achieve the goals of the Green Redmond Partnership over the next 20 years.

Roles and ResponsibilitiesProgram staff will include members of the following agencies and organizations: City of Redmond

Parks and Recreation DepartmentWithin Parks, the Park Operations Division is ultimately responsible for the maintenance and restoration of the City’s forested parklands, and will lead and coordinate most of the roles and responsibilities of the Green Redmond Partnership. Parks’ staff working on the Partnership include 1 lead worker serving as an urban

PLA

N

Management TeamCreates work plans, tracks accomplishments, and oversees general program

direction. Divided into three committees, the management team includes representatives from support staff responsible for enabling the work in the

three program areas. Fieldwork Committee:

Plans for and oversees fieldwork, including

volunteer sites and paid crew sites.

Community Committee:Plans outreach and marketing strategies

for recruitment and maintenance of

community volunteers and Forest Stewards.

Resource Committee:Manages and utilizes the Partnership’s financial

resources. Also plans trainings,

coordinates tools, and other non-monetary

resources.

IMP

LEM

EN

T

Support Staff

Redmond Parks and Recreation, Park Operations

Redmond Public Works, Natural

Resources

Redmond Planning and Community Development

Contractors and consultants

Community and Field Crews

Community volunteers Forest Stewards

Redmond Park Operations field

crews

Commercial crews and nonprofit organizations

Table 3: Management Structure for the Green Redmond Partnership


14

forester and volunteer coordinator, and a 2-person full-time (plus 4-person part-time) natural-area crew. The staff is supported by the Parks supervisor, manager, director, and administrative staff. Parks will house the budget for the Partnership within its General Operating Fund and Levy Fund for the first few years of work, or until it becomes necessary to pursue additional funding, and will be responsible for maintaining important funding relationships with other departments, the Mayor’s Office, and the City Council.

Parks will provide the Partnership with technical expertise and a skilled workforce in natural-area management. They will coordinate and fund the work done by Forest Stewards, community volunteers, contracted crews, and their own natural-area crews. This includes carrying out the fieldwork itself, record-keeping, planning the fieldwork, and setting annual goals and site priorities based on the 20-year benchmarks for this Forest Management Plan. Park Operations staff will utilize Cascade Land Conservancy’s resources from other Green City Partnerships, Redmond-specific field data, and the capacity assessment to help direct the 20-year plan. In the first years of the program, Cascade Land Conservancy will work closely with Parks to leverage and expand management systems set up for other Green Cities programs. Parks will actively support volunteer restoration efforts by providing materials, equipment, and supervision.

Park Operations will conduct local outreach to recruit new volunteers in publications such as Focus on Redmond and in kiosks located in the parks. They will also work with other departments and divisions, specifically Recreation (also under the Parks and Recreation Department), Public Works, Communications, and the Mayor’s Office, to promote and publicize the Partnership’s activities when appropriate opportunities arise.

Public Works DepartmentWithin Public Works, the Natural Resources Division is responsible for the protection and restoration of riparian areas both in and out of City parks. Natural Resources’ work is broken down into stormwater, water quality, environmental protection (salmon, streams,

etc.), and marketing/recycling. Its participation in the Green Redmond Partnership will focus largely on maintaining the stormwater management and habitat benefits provided by forested parklands, especially in areas near streams. As many of Redmond’s parks contain emergent wetlands, shorelines, and streams, the inclusion of Public Works to manage portions of these areas will help the Green Redmond Partnership as a whole.

There are 2 full-time employees dedicated to restoration and stewardship. The Stewardship Coordinator is generally involved with invasive clearing and planting, and handles volunteer stewardship activities. Natural Resources provides opportunities for volunteers to restore wetlands and streamsides. Public Works also contracts environmental education with a nonprofit organization, Nature Vision, for an additional educational component in youth restoration projects.

Planning and Community Development DepartmentThe Planning and Community Development Department will advise the Park Operations staff on fieldwork relating to critical areas, shorelines, and other areas with permitting concerns. They will also help with outreach for the Green Redmond Partnership by publicizing the program when appropriate through Citizen Advisory Committees.

Nonprofit OrganizationsCascade Land ConservancyCascade Land Conservancy (CLC) was responsible for research and planning in the first year leading up to writing this 20-year plan, including coordinating field surveys conducted by a forestry consultant and the analysis of the results, creating a capacity assessment of current City resources pertaining to restoration and natural-area stewardship, and identifying applicable policies, funding sources, and community members to engage in the program. Cascade Land Conservancy will continue to work in partnership with the City of Redmond and the community to articulate and advance the goals and vision of the Green Redmond Partnership. To meet these goals, CLC will work closely with Park Operations staff to implement restoration in the first priority parks, especially as systems are set


15

up for hosting work events and recruiting volunteer Forest Stewards. Cascade Land Conservancy will advise on further implementation of the 20-year plan and development of annual plans, offer technical training and support for staff and volunteers, advertise volunteer events, and provide networking opportunities for funding and resource support among other Green City partners. Additional staff for field crews, program management, outreach, marketing, development, and coordination with other Green City Partnerships may be provided by CLC, through contract work with the City. As needed, CLC will also provide assistance with open space acquisitions.

Other NonprofitsConservation work crews such as EarthCorps, the Student Conservation Association, and the Washington Conservation Corps play a significant role in urban forest restoration in the Pacific Northwest region. These organizations provide service-learning and job-training opportunities for program participants and offer high-quality restoration crews for field sites. For the Green Redmond Partnership, these groups and other private landscape crews will work on a contract basis in three capacities:

1. Organize, support, lead, and/or teach community volunteers during volunteer events.

2. Facilitate involvement of other youth, civic, business, and community organizations.

3. Perform restoration work in areas that cannot be served by volunteers or in areas where the City does not have adequate staff capacity.

Additionally, Nature Vision, the group that works with the Public Works Department to provide environmental education programs and act as a liaison in schools, could play an important role in furthering the mission of the Partnership. With excellent educational materials, the group reaches thousands of Redmond’s students each year.

VolunteersForest Steward groups and community volunteers are the core labor force for restoration and maintenance of natural areas through the Green Redmond Partnership. They bolster community interest and support for local

parks and greenways through their advocacy. The Partnership will work with community members to provide field leadership training and site planning. Volunteers committed to a restoration site in their local park can take on additional responsibilities and receive special training as a Forest Steward. An active and educated group of Forest Stewards is essential to expanding the capacity of the Partnership to work in many parks simultaneously as the program reaches its peak, and will help shape the work to fit the needs of particular neighborhoods.

Commercial CrewsPrivate landscape and habitat restoration crews will be hired as budget and needs allow. These commercial crews will focus on steep slopes and other difficult sites that require more technical work. Currently, there are a limited number of contractors who provide these services. The Partnership is committed to developing a well-trained, effective “green-collar” workforce that will provide living-wage employment for restoration practitioners.

FundersCorporate sponsors, foundations, and private donors may also play a critical role in the Green Redmond Partnership. These stakeholders can make up for gaps in funding in later years as the program grows and requires more resources.

Corporate sponsors will have significant opportunities to support the Partnership beyond financial donations.

Redmond Youth Partnership Advisory Committee working hard at Farrel-McWhirter Park


16

Private landscaping is a major source of invasive plants that spread to public parks. Efforts to educate landowners about the benefits of native shrubs and trees, and the problems of invasive species such as English ivy, will play a key part in preventing the continued spread of invasive species throughout the city. Working with landowners through education or incentive programs will help the Partnership generate a community that cares about the well-being of natural areas both on their own lands and in Redmond’s public spaces.

Landowners of property included in Native Growth Protection Easements can be encouraged to be more active in stewardship of these open space areas. Currently, the “hands-off ” attitude on the part of the landowners toward these properties has lead them to a similar state of decline as we are seeing in many of the parks, a situation that is only likely to worsen without intervention. Educating and engaging these landowners as invested stakeholders could mobilize an important corps of advocates and volunteers to reverse the trend and improve the health of the forests on their lands.

Employees of corporate sponsors could participate in large volunteer restoration events each year, providing a substantial additional labor pool. Sponsors may also be called on to make other contributions as appropriate. For example, they may be asked to donate supplies or services that can be provided through their companies. In return, these corporations will have the opportunity to be stewards of their community. Companies can offer their employees an outlet for community engagement, team-building opportunities, and the chance to be associated with a citywide movement for a healthier, more livable urban environment.

Private LandownersPrivate landowners are important players in the restoration efforts occurring on public lands. Private and public lands create a patchwork across the city, and privately owned natural forested areas can serve as vital connectors between fragile public greenspaces as well as help reduce the spread of invasives. Many of the pressures on Redmond’s forested parks are tied to the actions of the city’s human population, which can be stewarded either to degrade or enhance surrounding public spaces.

Volunteer planting native species at Perrigo Park


17

III. Implementation

Similarly to the other Green City Partnerships, we used a Balanced Scorecard approach to develop and adapt the implementation strategy for Redmond (see Table 4). The Balanced Scorecard is a widely used business tool that both helps to develop a strategy and to monitor progress as that strategy is carried out. The traditional scorecard balances profits, customer satisfaction, and employee welfare by listing goals and quantifying measures that indicate if actions meet the goals. The Balanced Scorecard helps define and align the efforts of complex organizations to achieve targeted outcomes. With these metrics, the groups in charge of managing the Partnership can track the success of many activities over the 20-year course of the program.

The layers of a traditional balanced scorecard focus on increasing shareholder value. For the Green Redmond Partnership, the layers were modified to reflect the ultimate goal of a healthy and sustainable urban forest. These layers include the key elements of the 20-year plan: fieldwork, community, and resources.

Our objectives within each layer are outlined in the Balanced Scorecard Strategy Map (see Section IV), which shows how activities can have reciprocal relationships. For example, volunteers are critical to accomplishing fieldwork, while demonstrating progress in fieldwork is essential to motivating and retaining volunteers. Similarly, the Partnership needs community support to secure the financial and volunteer resources to restore and monitor sites over the long term. By looking at the complete picture in layers that build on each other, we can coordinate efforts across various work areas so that activities are mutually supportive.

The ability of managers to track progress over the next 20 years will allow challenges to be identified early. In response, managers can modify or adapt the program to address and resolve the challenges.

The desired outcomes of the 20-year program:• Increase canopy cover and native species communities by actively managing 1,035 acres of Redmond’s forested parklands by 2029.• Build and maintain community capacity for long-term stewardship.• Create and implement a public involvement plan for outreach and environmental education.• Protect additional forested areas that provide ecological and public benefits.• Establish resources to provide long-term maintenance and ensure sustainability.

Element ActionFieldwork How we will carry out an on-the-ground strategy to restore and maintain 1,035

acres of forested parkland.

Community How we will maintain an engaged, educated community and prepared workforce over the long term and how we will engage and educate private landowners to match the efforts of the Green Redmond Partnership on their properties.

Resources How we will garner sufficient financial, paid labor, and volunteer resources to implement the strategy.

Table 4: Balanced scorecard elements

The Green Redmond Partnership implementation strategy includes a balance between our three program areas: field work, community, and resources.


18

Fieldwork OverviewFieldwork is at the heart of the Green Redmond Partnership. Active management of our field sites will include restoration, maintenance, and monitoring. The work will target removing invasive plants and

establishing native vegetation as appropriate. A citywide evaluation of all of the sites was done in order to prioritize restoration efforts and guide us in setting our goals.

Fieldwork Objective 1: Evaluate Existing Conditions Redmond’s urban forests are fragmented, disturbed, and impacted by invasive species – all of which pose numerous challenges to forest management. Traditional forest analysis methods and management tools do not adequately address the problems facing urban landscapes. The Green Seattle Partnership developed a new approach, the tree-iage model, to assess habitat conditions in urban forests. The model is based on the medical triage concept and uses tree composition and invasive species cover to prioritize restoration.

The broad variation in forest stands in Redmond is typical of urban areas throughout the Puget Sound region. Some stands may contain mature conifers with a rich collection of Northwest native understory plants. The desired outcomes of the 20-year program:

• Increase canopy cover and native species communities by actively managing 1,035 acres of Redmond’s forested parklands by 2029.• Build and maintain community capacity for long-term stewardship.• Create and implement a public involvement plan for outreach and environmental education.• Protect additional forested areas that provide ecological and public benefits.• Establish resources to provide long-term maintenance and ensure sustainability.

Element ActionFieldwork How we will carry out an on-the-ground strategy to restore and maintain 1,035

acres of forested parkland.

Community How we will maintain an engaged, educated community and prepared workforce over the long term and how we will engage and educate private landowners to match the efforts of the Green Redmond Partnership on their properties.

Resources How we will garner sufficient financial, paid labor, and volunteer resources to implement the strategy.

Other stands contain mature alders and bigleaf maples with significant nonnative blackberry and ivy patches in the understory. Given this wide variation, the tree-iage model was developed to better assess all of these conditions. It may be applied broadly to evaluate the citywide forest condition or in individual parks to help define park-specific restoration priorities.

The tree-iage model uses tree canopy composition and invasive species cover as its two parameters. Without disturbance, most of Redmond’s parks would be dominated by mature evergreen coniferous trees, with a medium- to high-density canopy, mixed age classes, and species diversity. These high-quality forest stands lacking any invasive species represent a typical Pacific Northwest forest—the reference for our analysis.

An example of this forest type is Watershed Preserve, comprising just over 780 acres of high-quality coniferous forest with well-established native understory and ground cover. This type of forest provides much greater ecological benefits than shorter-lived pioneering forests of bigleaf maple and red alder. Some habitats, such as wetlands, riparian corridors, or steep slopes, however, may not be appropriate for conifers; in these circumstances, a composition of other tree and shrub species may be more suitable. It is important to note that this methodology is used on a broad scale; site-by-site analysis will need to be done as work progresses to ensure the most appropriate restoration practices and species composition are chosen for each site.

Redmond’s 1,035 acres of public forested area include the immense Watershed Preserve, a thriving, mature, second-growth forest located northeast of the city limits near the development of Redmond Ridge. Just over 780 acres in size and containing many large, native trees, this fantastic resource offers to Redmond the benefits of urban natural areas on a large scale. The Preserve has been very well maintained and, due to both its size and location, faces the pressures of the urban setting to a lesser degree than some of the smaller, more centrally located parks and greenbelts. We have the opportunity to maintain this forest now while it is still in excellent condition, and also to use it as a model for our other forested areas.

Because it is so different from the rest of our project parks, Watershed Preserve has different management needs. While many other parks will require intensive invasive removal or large planting projects, the Preserve mostly needs monitoring to spot-check for invasive growth, especially along the trails.

The Parks and Recreation Department is currently pursuing a management plan for Watershed Preserve that will fully address all of its special needs. In addition to the forest maintenance through the Green Redmond Partnership, this plan includes support facilities such as parking areas and restrooms.

wAtershed preserve


19

MethodologyThe Green Redmond Partnership’s efforts will be focused on the 1,035 acres of forested parklands owned by the City of Redmond. Forested parklands are defined as parks with 25% or greater tree canopy coverage. While street trees and landscaped parks provide important open space benefits and should be targeted for maintenance, they have not been included in the current scope of work.

International Forestry Consultants, Inc. conducted the baseline assessment in the spring and summer of 2008. The assessment had two components: 1) Habitat Management Unit (HMU) mapping and field data collection and 2) permanent plot establishment in select parks for long-term monitoring.

The HMU mapping and field data collection provided an initial assessment of the overstory (tree canopy) and understory (ground covers, shrubs, and invasive species). Forest stands within Redmond’s parks were initially classified through digital orthophoto interpretation, dividing each stand into one of five categories: water, hardscaped, forested, disturbed, or landscaped. These initial stand-type delineations were ground-verified in the field and, if necessary, the delineations were corrected or the boundaries were adjusted in the Geographic Information System. All HMUs were assigned unique numbers to be used for field verification and data tracking.

While in the field, each HMU was surveyed for species and size of dominant and secondary overstory, species of dominant and secondary understory, and species of primary and secondary invasive cover. Detailed descriptions of the conditions in each park can be found in Appendix C.

Additionally, each HMU was assigned a value (High, Medium, or Low) for overall tree composition, according to the following breakdown:

• High: HMUs with more than 25% native tree canopy cover, in which evergreen species and/or madrones make up more than 50% of the total canopy.

• Medium: HMUs with more than 25% native

tree canopy cover, in which evergreen species and/or madrones make up between 1 and 50% of the total canopy.

• Low: HMUs with less than 25% native tree canopy cover OR forests with more than 25% native tree canopy, in which evergreen species and/or madrones make up 0% of the total canopy.

The second component of the tree-iage analysis was to assign each HMU one of the following invasive cover-threat values:

• High: HMUs with more than 50% invasive species cover.

• Medium: HMUs with between 5 and 50% invasive species cover.

• Low: HMUs with less than 5% invasive species cover.

The purpose of this data collection method is to use a matrix system to determine a priority rating for each parcel based on the quality of the overstory tree composition and the threat of invasive cover within. Using the two values of tree composition and invasive species cover, each HMU was then assigned one of nine possible categories in the tree-iage matrix. The top row of the matrix — categories 1, 2, and 3 — comprises native forest stands dominated by mature conifers, madrones, or riparian forests. The bottom row of the matrix — categories 7, 8, and 9 — comprises forests with little to no conifers and/or native deciduous trees.

Tree-iage mapping is useful for interpreting a broad overview of the forested cover as it relates to evergreen and conifer versus deciduous forest cover and threat of invasive species in the understory. It is limited, however, in its applicability to quantify the condition of the forest and the desired future condition at the site level.

To provide more detailed information about select areas, permanent plots were installed in 9 forested parks. Plots were installed at a spacing of 1 per 2 acres, with a minimum of 3 plots per HMU when the HMU was less than 6 acres. The objective of installing plots was twofold: 1. confirm/verify the tree-iage mapping, and 2. establish long-term monitoring stations that will


20

Figure 3: Tree-iage analysis categories

Figure 4: Tree-iage categories as seen in Redmond

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

HIGH> 25% native tree

canopy cover AND >50% of canopy

cover is coniferous and/or madrone

MEDIUM> 25% native tree

canopy cover AND 1-50% of canopy

cover is coniferous and/or madrone

LOW< 25% native tree canopy cover OR

0% of canopy cover is coniferous and/or

madroneLOW < 5%

invasive cover

MEDIUM 5-50%

invasive cover

HIGH > 50%

invasive cover

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

LOW MEDIUM HIGH


21

be revisited every 5 years to monitor changes in the urban forest condition and the success of management efforts citywide.

Fifty-three permanent plots were installed in nine parks: Bridle Crest Trail Site, Grass Lawn Community Park, Hartman Community Park, Heron Rookery, Idylwood Beach Park, Redmond West Wetlands, Viewpoint Neighborhood Park, Viewpoint Open Space, and Westside Neighborhood Park. In HMUs larger than 3 acres in size, 1/20th-acre plots were installed; in HMUs less than 3 acres in size, 1/100th-acre plots were installed.

Overstory trees (trees greater than 6 inches in diameter at 4 ½ feet (dbh)) were individually numbered with aluminum tags, and dbh, species, age, height, and condition were measured and recorded. See Table 5 for an explanation of the condition codes recorded for each overstory tree. Understory trees (trees less than 6 inches dbh) were estimated for dbh, age, and height. Species, estimated percent cover, and average height were recorded for both native understory vegetation (ground cover and shrubs) and invasive species. Monitoring photos were also taken to the north and east at each plot location.

The data gathered from these permanent plots will serve as baseline conditions from which the effectiveness of restoration efforts and the long-term health of Redmond’s forests can be assessed in the future.

ResultsFrom the data gathered from all HMUs during the tree-iage assessment and additional permanent plot data, a picture of Redmond’s forested parklands begins to form. The initial results show that nearly all of Redmond’s forests are in exceptional condition: low invasive species cover and high tree composition levels. Upon closer look, however, it is clear that this conclusion is skewed because of the 782-acre Watershed Preserve, which is full of large, coniferous trees and has a very low invasive threat. Since the needs of Watershed Preserve are quite different from the majority of Redmond’s parks, and the results are overwhelmed by the Preserve’s unique situation, we’ve broken up the results between Watershed Preserve and all other Parks. When we created our annual goals for the number of acres enrolled into management each year, we kept the acres in Watershed Preserve separate from those in other parks. This allows us to work them into the program gradually, and to acknowledge the difference in labor and other resources that managing those acres will require.

It is important to note that this data is only as accurate as the tools that were used to complete the assessment. The tree-iage method is a broad approach to assessing forest condition and was used to create a citywide analysis of tree composition and invasive threat. While an HMU may be categorized according to the average conditions present, small pockets within that HMU may differ from the average across the stand. Note that all percentages in the following tables have been rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Condition Factors Condition Codes#1 #2 #3

Tree Vigor: Growth Good Average Poor

Foliage: Color & Density Normal Normal Abnormal-Chlorotic/Sparse

Structural Defects Minor Moderate Severe

Probability of Failure Low Low-Moderate Moderate-Severe

Table 5: Condition codes


22

HMUsBased on the HMU mapping and data collection, Redmond’s forested parklands are dominated by coniferous and evergreen tree cover, while a smaller percentage have primarily deciduous tree cover (see Table 6). A more detailed look at the data shows that Redmond has a large amount of mature Douglas-fir and western hemlock in the overstory (see Table 7). Other species make up a much smaller percentage of the overstory and vary in size, the majority of these species being western red cedar, bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, and red alder.

Dominant Primary and Second Overstory Species by Size Class

Species

Watershed Preserve All Other ParksPercent of Project Area

Size Class (dbh)Percent of Project Area

Size Class (dbh)0 no canopy

4( >21”)

0no canopy

1(0-5.9”)

2 (6-10.9”)

3(11-20.9”)

4( >21”)

Dominant Primary OverstoryDouglas-fir 97.65 97.65 51.70 7.84 43.86Black cottonwood 15.80 6.70 9.10Bigleaf maple 11.24 7.82 3.41Red alder 5.78 1.05 4.73 Willow 3.10 0.32 2.78 Oak 1.99 1.99 Western red cedar 1.36 1.36 Western hemlock 1.32 0.88 0.44No canopy 2.35 2.35 7.70 7.70

Primary Overstory Total 2.35 97.65 100.00 7.70 1.68 3.83 29.97 56.82

Dominant Secondary OverstoryWestern hemlock 100.0 100.0 30.26 1.99 2.09 17.20 8.97Western red cedar 14.15 0.51 1.80 11.85Red alder 14.01 0.73 4.33 8.95 Bigleaf maple 11.39 0.51 9.04 1.84Douglas-fir 10.92 10.92 Black cottonwood 3.59 2.71 0.88 Spruce 3.54 3.54 Willow 2.73 1.90 0.83 Birch 1.70 1.70 No canopy 7.70 7.70

Secondary Overstory Total 100.00 7.70 8.66 12.18 48.80 22.66

Table 7: Dominant primary and secondary overstory species by size class

Table 6: Distribution of dominant primary overstory tree cover

Primary Overstory Tree Cover

Dominant Canopy TypePercent of Project AreaWatershed Preserve All Other Parks

Coniferous/Evergreen 97.65 43.89Deciduous 23.17Mixed 25.24No Canopy 2.35 7.70Total 100.0 100.0


23

Understory Vegetation Composition Species Percent

Native Sword fern 13.40Salmonberry 9.62Hazel 7.22Indian plum 6.02Creeping blackberry 5.33Bleeding heart 2.98Vine maple 2.67Salal 2.66Oregon grape 2.50Misc. herbaceous 1.92Spirea 1.69Grasses 1.65Huckleberry 1.20Sedge 1.20Lady fern 1.13Elderberry 0.93Woody shrubs 0.77Bracken fern 0.57Snowberry 0.35Skunk cabbage 0.34Nettle 0.33Devils club 0.33Holly 0.17Vanilla leaf 0.17Rose 0.15Horse tail 0.14Mixed ferns 0.11Thimbleberry 0.07Willow 0.05Oak fern 0.03Native Total 65.70

Invasive Himalayan and evergreen blackberry 27.42English ivy 2.64Herb Robert/Buttercup 2.23Holly 0.79Weeds 0.61Buttercup 0.41Snow-on-the-mountain 0.31Grasses 0.20Clematis 0.08Morning glory 0.03Invasive Total 34.72

Table 9: Distribution of understory native and invasive species

Long-Term Monitoring PlotsIn order to formulate a picture of Redmond’s regenerating forest (the small trees that are growing under the mature tree canopy), we used the information from the permanent plots (Table 8). Understory Tree CompositionSpecies PercentWestern red cedar 31.20Cascara 13.12Bigleaf maple 11.92Red alder 9.55Willow 9.26Quaking aspen 6.33Oregon ash 6.13Indian plum 4.81Mountain ash 4.18Cherry 1.34Black cottonwood 0.50Willow 0.50Pacific dogwood 0.35Western hemlock 0.35Apple 0.30Sitka spruce 0.16Total 100.00

Although the permanent plots are only samples from nine parks, this is the most detailed information available. We can make the assumption that the other parks in Redmond might have a similar makeup of understory trees. Based on the data, Redmond’s three most common understory trees are western red cedar, cascara, and bigleaf maple.

Using the same permanent plot data, we can also look at the composition of Redmond’s understory vegetation, including native shrubs and ground covers and invasive species (see Table 9). Sword fern, salmonberry, hazel, Indian plum, and creeping blackberry are the most common native species, while smaller amounts of many others are also present. On average, native species make up approximately 66% of the understory of the sampled plots. Invasive species, mainly Himalayan and evergreen blackberry and English ivy, make up 34% of the understory.

*Note: Although not observed during this inventory, the invasive species honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.) and Japanese knotweed (Polygonum x bohemica) are growing concerns in the Puget Sound region.

Table 8: Distribution of understory tree species


24

Overstory and Understory Tree Condition

Percent by Condition CodeSpecies Good Average Poor Total

OVERSTORY

Douglas-fir 4.11 20.71 2.52 27.35Red cedar 9.46 12.73 22.19Bigleaf maple 0.48 20.94 21.42Red alder 3.15 7.98 2.43 13.57Landscape shrubs 4.61 4.61Western hemlock 3.97 3.97Quaking aspen 2.92 2.92Oregon ash 1.65 0.93 2.58Black cottonwood 0.69 0.23 0.92Willow 0.48 0.48Overstory Total 24.15 66.93 8.92 100.0

UNDERSTORY

Western red cedar 29.22 1.97 31.20Cascara 1.00 12.12 13.12Bigleaf maple 7.56 4.35 11.92Red alder 4.38 5.17 9.55Willow 9.26 9.26Quaking aspen 6.33 6.33Oregon ash 1.16 4.96 6.13Wild plum 4.81 4.81Mountain ash 3.49 0.69 4.18Cherry 1.34 1.34Black cottonwood 0.13 0.37 0.50Willow 0.50 0.50Pacific dogwood 0.35 0.35Western hemlock 0.35 0.35Apple 0.30 0.30Sitka spruce 0.16 0.16Understory Total 53.41 45.03 1.56 100.0

Table 10: Distribution of overstory and understory tree species by condition code

The final piece of information collected in the permanent plots was related to average condition of overstory and understory trees. This will be an important component of future monitoring since one of the Green Redmond Partnership’s goals is to improve the health of our urban forests. The data from the permanent plots shows that 67% of Redmond’s overstory trees appear to be in average condition, while the understory trees appear to be split between good (53%) and average (45%) condition (see Table 10).

Tree-iage MatrixIn addition to the overstory tree composition, the HMU mapping and data collection process assessed invasive species cover and assigned each HMU a High, Medium, or Low value for both tree composition and invasive species threat. Looking at all of Redmond’s parks, including Watershed Preserve, the majority (86%) of Redmond’s forests appear to have high tree composition values (see Table 11). However, since almost all of Watershed Preserve (98%) falls in the high tree composition value, these values are skewed. Looking at all of Redmond’s other parks, not including Watershed Preserve, just over half (52%) of Redmond’s forests have high tree composition values, with the remaining almost evenly split between medium (22%) and low (26%) values.

Tree Composition Value TotalAll ParksHigh 86.38Medium 6.43Low 7.19Total All Parks 100.00Watershed PreserveHigh 97.65Medium 0.00Low 2.35Total Watershed Preserve 100.00All Other ParksHigh 51.58Medium 22.13Low 26.30Total All Other Parks 100.00

Table 11: Distribution of tree composition value


25

The second axis of the tree-iage matrix is the threat from invasive species, based on percent of HMU understory covered by invasive species. Once again, when looking at all parks together, including Watershed Preserve, the results are skewed: 91% of Redmond’s forests have a low threat from invasive species (see Table 12). This number goes down to 62% when looking at all parks other than Watershed Preserve. Comparing invasive species threat with tree composition allows for the identification of a tree-iage category (between 1 and 9) for each HMU and a summary of total acres within each category as shown in Figure 5. The Green Redmond Partnership will monitor and collect data for restoration sites to evaluate changes in acreage among the tree-iage categories over time. Additionally, the tree-iage model will evolve to incorporate other features of urban forest habitats or other natural areas such as streams and wetlands. These areas will also receive more detailed analysis to address their site-specific needs as restoration continues. The map in Figure 6 shows the location of each park within the project area. See Appendix C for the location and extent of tree-iage categories within each park.

Figure 5: Tree-iage distribution across project area (acres)

1763.46

2 0

30

40

50

60

7 18.40

8 0

9 0

Low

Low

Medium High

Med

ium

Hig

h

WATERSHED PRESERVE

1869.84

2 5.05

319.16

427.80

526.67

612.11

742.04

86.09

926.30

Low

Low

Medium High

Med

ium

Hig

h

ALL PARKS

1106.38

25.05

319.16

427.80

526.67

612.11

723.64

86.09

926.30

Low

Low

Medium High

Med

ium

Hig

h

ALL OTHER PARKS

Invasive Species Threat Value TotalAll ParksHigh 5.56Medium 3.65Low 90.79Total All Parks 100.00Watershed PreserveHigh 0.00Medium 0.00Low 100.00Total Watershed Preserve 100.00All Other ParksHigh 22.74Medium 14.93Low 62.33Total All Other Parks 100.00

Table 12: Distribution of invasive species threat


26

Figure 6: Green Redmond Partnership project area

WatershedPreserveand TrailsFarrel-McWhirter

Park

JuelCommunityPark

HartmanCommunity

Park

PerrigoCommunityPark

Grass LawnCommunity Park

Bear and EvansCreek Greenway

(Northern Portion)

ArthurJohnson Park

IdylwoodBeach Park

BearCreekPark

EastValleyNGPE

NikeNeighborhood

Park

Conrad Olson Farm

ViewpointOpen Space

HeronRookery

Cascade ViewNeighborhood Park

RedmondWest

Wetlands

MeadowNeighborhood

Park

ViewpointNeighborhood Park

Willows CreekNeighborhood Park

Northeast RedmondNeighborhood Park

Bear and EvansCreek Greenway(Southern Portion)

WestsideNeighborhood

Park

Bridle CrestTrail Site

Green Redmond Partnership: Project Area

®4,500

Feet

Sa

mm

am

ish

Riv

er

L a k e

S a m m a m i s h

¬«520


27

out where interested community members lived and worked, and which parks they visited most frequently. Through structured workshops, we were able to explore how they value Redmond’s parks, where and how resources should be distributed, and ways to implement a successful outreach and marketing campaign related to the Partnership. The feedback we received was exceptional, and the ideas we used to inform the writing of this plan and determine the goals for annual restoration plans. The feedback is summarized in Appendix D.

Based upon a combination of the initial fieldwork data and public feedback, we determined that our first three priority parks will be Farrel-McWhirter Park, Grass Lawn Community Park, and Idylwood Beach Park. This was based on restoration needs at these parks, feedback from the community meetings, the presence of interested community members, and the possibility for high levels of visibility for the Partnership’s work. In subsequent years, we will use the following decision tree to determine which parks will be a priority for management.

Figure 7: Decision tree for prioritizing restoration sites

Current high-value forest

composition?

Geographic distribution?

Expressed community

importance or critical area?

Yes Yes

Volunteer interest or available Forest Steward?

Not a priority site at this time

No

No

Priority Site:

Create work plan; begin restoration

and maintenance

Yes

No No

Yes

Fieldwork Objective 2: Prioritize ParksUsing both the tree-iage analysis and the plot-based inventory, the need for active forest management throughout Redmond is revealed. More than 20 parks are included in the restoration plan, and some parks contain as many as four different tree-iage categories, each with different needs. To maximize resources, the Green Redmond Partnership will need to prioritize our efforts to balance high-priority ecological sites with sites that have high volunteer support. We will also seek to distribute restoration efforts evenly across the city to incorporate all neighborhoods.

During the first five years of the Partnership (2009 to 2013), most of our work will focus on parks with high-quality forest or interested community volunteers. Within those parks, we will concentrate resources on protecting and maintaining high-quality habitat units identified by the tree-iage analysis.

To help engage the public in ranking the restoration sites and guiding our planning process, we held a series of public meetings in the fall of 2008. We found


28

Fieldwork Objective 3: Prioritize Restoration Sites within ParksAs individual parks are enrolled into active management through the Green Redmond Partnership, forest stands within those parks must be prioritized for annual and five-year restoration plans. The tree-iage model can be applied within a park to help prioritize restoration sites. Conifer stands with few to no invasive plants (tree-iage category 1) will be enrolled into ongoing monitoring and maintenance as quickly as possible. Other high-value forest stands, including conifer-dominated tree-iage categories 2 and 3, will be considered high priorities for protection and restoration. Other factors, such as the presence of wetlands, streams, or shorelines, will also be taken into consideration. Providing care for recently restored sites is a priority as well. As the Partnership increases its resources, work will be done on other tree-iage categories to establish conifers or other desired canopy types.

Parks with current restoration in progress are considered active Green Redmond Partnership sites and will continue to be supported and monitored by staff. In order to enroll all 1,035 acres of forested parkland into active management and maintenance by 2029, we have set annual acreage goals for Green Redmond Partnership fieldwork.

In the beginning, as we emphasize community outreach and resource gathering, we will slowly build a strong base of active sites. We will spend the first years of the program gradually working our way to our peak goal of enrolling 25 new acres in restoration and 50 new acres in monitoring and maintenance in 2015. This will allow us to meet our goal of enrolling all 1,035 acres of forested parks into active management in 20 years.

In 2013, we will revisit the park and site selection processes to ensure we are meeting project and community goals. We will then select parks for the next five years (2014 to 2018) of project implementation. See Appendix B, Green Redmond Partnership Near- Term and Long-Term Strategic Plan and Benchmarks, for more detail.

Fieldwork Objective 4: Restoration ImplementationBest Management Practices (BMPs) for restoration are considered the most effective methods to maximize ecological benefits by creating a high-quality, high-functioning forest once we reach the end of our 20-year program. The Green Redmond Partnership will use the same 4-phase approach that has been used successfully in the other Green City Partnerships. BMPs As more restoration projects are completed in urban environments, we learn more about what does and does not work. We look to these previous experiences, especially the work Seattle Parks and Recreation has completed through the Green Seattle Partnership, to compile and develop BMPs for our fieldwork. These BMPs include site planning, invasive control methods, planting and plant establishment, and volunteer management. Field experience and best available science will help us improve our techniques over time, and we will update the BMPs accordingly.

The Green Seattle Partnership created a Forest Steward Field Guide (Cascade Land Conservancy and Seattle Parks and Recreation 2007) of BMPs suitable for volunteer work. The Green Redmond Partnership will adapt this field guide for Redmond’s Forest Steward program.

Program staff and our volunteer Forest Stewards will be trained in the BMPs. Supplemental course work and training programs will be recommended for all staff involved in active management of Redmond’s forested natural areas. 4-phase approach to restoration fieldwork One of the unique BMPs developed by the Green Seattle Partnership is the 4-phase approach to restoration fieldwork, which has been highly successful. It recognizes that restoration activities fall into four major phases, and that it takes several years to move through these phases at some sites: 1. Invasive removal 2. Secondary invasive removal and planting 3. Plant establishment 4. Long-term maintenance


29

Because forest health varies from stand to stand, and some work is ongoing, not every site will start at Phase 1. Each site, however, will receive an on-the-ground assessment before we begin work in the appropriate phase. The 4-phase approach also provides ranges of labor investment needed to accomplish the phase, allowing for estimates of cost and time per acre (see Table 13).

Phase 1. Invasive plant removalThe first phase aims to clear the site of invasive plants, focusing on small areas at a time in order to ensure thoroughness and minimize regrowth. Specific removal techniques will vary by species, and it may take more than a year to complete the initial removal.

Major invasive plant reduction will be required on sites with 50% or greater invasive cover (high threat from invasive species: tree-iage categories 3, 6, and 9). Many of these areas will require paid crews or special equipment. These sites will also require a large investment of both funding and community volunteers to ensure restoration. Areas with 5% to 50% invasive cover (medium threat from invasive plants: tree-iage categories 2, 4, and 8) will also require invasive removal. Invasive growth in these spots is patchy. Generally, projects in these sites are appropriate for community volunteers.

Phase 2. Planting and secondary invasive removalBefore planting, a second round of invasive removal is done to target any regrowth before it spreads, and to clear the site for young native plants to be established. Staff will work with each site on a case-by-case basis to develop an appropriate plant palette and work plan.

Areas with over 50% canopy cover by conifers (tree-iage categories 1, 2, and 3) will require the least amount of planting, but may need to be filled in with ground cover, shrubs, and small trees in the understory. Areas with more than 25% native tree cover but less than 50% cover by conifers (tree-iage categories 4, 5, and 6) will generally be filled in with native conifer species. Areas with less than 25% native tree canopy cover (tree-iage categories 7, 8, and 9) will require extensive planting with native trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Most Phase 2 planting projects are appropriate for community volunteers. The Forest Steward Field Guide provides volunteer-appropriate BMPs once a planting plan is established.

Phase 3. Plant establishmentThis phase repeats invasive plant removal and includes weeding, mulching, and watering newly planted natives until they are sufficiently established on their own. Sites may stay in Phase 3 for up to three years.

Phase 4. Long-term monitoring and maintenanceThe final phase is long-term site stewardship, including monitoring by volunteers and professional crews to provide information for ongoing site maintenance. Monitoring may be as simple as neighborhood volunteers patrolling park trails to find invasive species and hosting small monthly, quarterly, or annual work parties. Forest stands that currently have less than 5% invasive cover and more than 50% native conifer forest cover (tree-iage category 1) may already be in Phase 4.

Phase Tasks Range of Labor Investment (hours/acre)

Estimated Volunteer Match Required for Green Redmond Partnership (hours/acre)

1 Invasive plant removal 50 - 1,400 7002 Planting and secondary invasive removal 50 - 200/year for up to 3 years 1003 Plant establishment 25 - 100/year for up to 3 years 404 Long-term monitoring and maintenance 0 - 20 annually 5

Table 13: The 4-phase approach to restoration field work


30

Monitoring & Maintenance

Invasive Plant Reduction

Major Invasive Plant Reduction

Planting Invasive Plant Reduction &

Planting

Major Invasive Plant Reduction & Planting

Evaluation & Possible Planting

Invasive Plant Reduction & Major

Planting

Major Invasive Plant Reduction & Major

Planting

Low

Low

Medium High

Med

ium

Hig

hFigure 8: Tree-iage categories and restoration strategies

Application to the Tree-iage CategoriesThe 4-phase approach can be applied to the tree-iage categories as shown in Figure 8. Each tree-iage category can be assigned appropriate management strategies. The Partnership will evaluate areas of “low coverage”

and “low threat” on a case-by-case basis to determine if it is appropriate to convert the sites to native forest. In areas where site conditions and timing are appropriate, we will do major plantings.


31

Tree-iage Category 1: High Tree Composition, Low Invasive Threat

896.84 acres Forest Condition: This category contains the healthiest forest areas in the park system. Typical stands have more than 50% evergreen canopy. This category includes stands of mature western red cedar, Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and forested wetlands. These stands are under low threat because the invasive cover is less than 5%.

Management Strategy: Monitoring and Maintenance

Work will focus on protecting these areas’ existing high quality and making sure that invasive plants do not establish themselves.

Tree-iage Category 2: High Tree Composition, Medium Invasive Threat 5.05 acres Forest Condition: Similar to category 1, these forest stands contain more than 50% conifer or evergreen broadleaf canopy. Forests in this category are at risk because the invasive cover is greater than 5%. In these areas, invasive growth is expected to be patchy with diffuse edges.

A forest in otherwise good condition but subject to a number of moderate threats may degrade if left untreated. If unattended, this level of invasive coverage could prevent native seedlings from establishing and could compete with existing trees for water and nutrients. However, the forest would persist in good condition if threats were mitigated in a timely manner.

Management Strategy: Invasive Plant Reduction and Prompt Action

The main activity is removing invasive plants. Typically, these sites will also require site preparation (e.g., mulching) and infill planting. Projects in these areas are appropriate for volunteers. Removing invasive plants from these areas is a very high priority for the first 5 years.


32

Tree-iage Category 3: High Tree Composition, High Invasive Threat 19.16 acres Forest Condition: As in categories 1 and 2, forest stands in this category have mature conifers, madrones, or wetland forests. Category 3 areas have a high threat from greater than 50% invasive cover.

A forest in this category is in a high-risk situation and contains many desirable trees or highly valuable habitat or species. If restored, forests in this category can completely recover and persist over the long term.

Management Strategy: Major Invasive Plant Reduction

Urgent restoration is needed. Major invasive reduction is the strategy here. Without prompt action, high-quality forest stands could be lost. Category 3 areas will require aggressive invasive reduction. Soil amendments and replanting will be needed in most cases. Restoration efforts in this category are a top priority for the first 5 years.

Tree-iage Category 4: Medium Tree Composition, Low Invasive Threat 27.80 acres Forest Condition: Forests assigned a medium coverage value are typically dominated by native deciduous trees, but have some (1%-50%) cover of native conifers. These areas are estimated to have greater than 25% native upper canopy cover but less than 50% upper canopy coniferous or broadleaf cover (or in the case of wetland forests, it is greater than 50% native tree canopy cover). Category 4 forests have low levels of invasive plants. Management Strategy: Planting and Monitoring

We expect planting in these areas to consist of infilling with native species and establishing conifers to be recruited into the next generation of canopy. Often these sites will also require some invasive removal and site preparation (e.g., amending with woodchip mulch). Many of these sites may be converted to a conifer forest by the addition of appropriate conifer trees.

Addressing category 4 forests is a high priority during the first 5 years. They offer a high likelihood of success at a minimum investment. These sites are well suited to community-led restoration efforts.


33

Tree-iage Category 5: Medium Tree Composition, Medium Invasive Threat 26.67 acres Forest Condition: Areas in this category have greater than 5% but less than 50% invasive cover. Invasive growth in these areas is expected to be patchy with diffuse edges. These areas are estimated to have greater than 25% native upper canopy cover but less than 50% upper canopy coniferous or broadleaf cover (or in the case of wetland forests, it is greater than 50% native tree canopy cover).

These forest stands contain many desirable native trees that are under threat from invasive plants.

Management Strategy: Invasive Reduction and Planting

These sites will require invasive removal and infill planting. While some restoration work is planned for this area in the first 5 years, aggressive efforts will be required throughout the life of the Green Redmond Partnership.

Tree-iage Category 6: Medium Tree Composition, High Invasive Threat 12.11 acres Forest Condition: These areas are estimated to have greater than 50% invasive cover and greater than 25% native upper canopy cover, but less than 50% upper canopy coniferous cover (or in the case of wetland forests, greater than 50% native tree canopy cover).

A forest that retains important plant elements but is already partially degraded by a high-level risk factor may still have the potential to recover if remediation is prompt. Because these stands are at greater risk than category 5 forests, they also require greater labor investments.

Management Strategy: Major Invasive Reduction and Planting.

Extensive invasive removal, site preparation (e.g., amending with woodchip mulch), and replanting will be required. Initial invasive removal may be done with the aid of mechanical tools and equipment and may require professional crews. Planting in these areas will consist of infilling with native species.


34

Tree-iage Category 7: Low Tree Composition, Low Invasive Threat 42.04 acres Forest Condition: These areas are estimated to have less than 25% native upper canopy cover. Levels of invasive plants are low in category 7 forests.

Parks in this category may include recent acquisitions, areas with large gaps in canopy (perhaps due to wind throw or die-off of mature deciduous trees), sites of recent landslides, unstable slopes, sites with large amounts of fill, and areas dominated by nonnative trees.

Management Strategy: Evaluate and Possibly Plant

The reasons underlying the low value can differ greatly, and we will address the stands on a case-by-case basis. Because of low levels of invasive plants, restoration may be quite cost-effective in some of the category 7 forests. We will evaluate sites in this category to determine whether conditions and timing are appropriate to move these wooded areas toward a more native forest, and what the appropriate composition of that forest should be. In some cases, it may be desirable to remove nonnative trees, especially if they are aggressive.

Areas that are ready for conversion to native forest would be a high priority during the first 5 years.

Tree-iage Category 8: Low Tree Composition, Medium Invasive Threat 6.09 acres Forest Condition: Areas that are estimated to have less than 25% native upper tree canopy cover and 5% to 50% invasive cover fall into this category. Invasive growth in these areas is likely to be patchy with diffuse edges.

A forest in this category might be chronically degraded by a variety of threatening processes, and might have lost much of its value in terms of habitat quality or species complement.

Management Strategy: Invasive Plant Reduction and Major Planting

Restoration efforts in category 8 forests require a large investment of time and resources. Although some work will be directed to category 8 forests, this is not a priority category for the first 5 years. The Partnership will support efforts that contain the spread of invasive plants, try out new techniques, or help enthusiastic community-led efforts. These sites will require major invasive removal and site preparation, such as mulching and infill planting. Planting within these areas will consist of infilling with native species.


35

Tree-iage Category 9: Low Tree Composition, High Invasive Threat 26.30 acres Forest Condition: Areas estimated to have less than 25% native upper tree canopy cover and greater than 50% invasive cover fall into this category.

Management Strategy: Major Invasive Plant Reduction and Major Planting

Category 9 sites are not likely to get much worse over the next 5 years. These sites will require many years of major invasive removal and site preparation in the form of mulching and infill planting, and will almost definitely require the attention of professional crews. Although work will be directed to category 9 forests later on, this is not a priority category for the first 5 years. The Partnership will support efforts that contain the spread of invasive plants, try out new techniques, or bolster enthusiastic community-led efforts.

Fieldwork Objective 5: Ongoing Monitoring and MaintenanceThe sustainability of urban forests hinges on ongoing maintenance. As each forest stand is restored (moving through Phases 1 through 3), it enters into monitoring and maintenance: Phase 4. The acreage in Phase 4 will grow every year until 2028, when all 1,035 acres will be at maintenance levels only.

Without ongoing, long-term volunteer investment in monitoring and maintenance of restored areas, Redmond’s forests will fall back into neglect. For that reason, the volunteer commitment needs to be paired with City resources. We will continually check our work against the best available science to define optimal plant stock and sizes, watering regimes, soil preparation, and other forest management techniques.

We will document monitoring and maintenance events to describe locations, workers, and tasks, and we will test and evaluate how effectively various restoration techniques remove invasive plants and promote native plant survival. This information will inform the ongoing monitoring and maintenance conducted by volunteers and the City.

Monitoring will be conducted more frequently in the early phases of the program as we learn how the sites respond to restoration.


36

Community OverviewCommunity volunteers are an essential component of lasting success in any stewardship program. Volunteers are the loudspeaker, newsletter, fundraisers, and motivators for the Partnership. They are the

advocates for resources and funding that would not be available without public demand. They do much of the physical restoration work, and the field effort relies on them in order to achieve its goals. The Green Redmond Partnership will work to educate, engage, and motivate the community to create an involved and motivated constituency throughout Redmond.

Prior to creating this plan, we held a series of public meetings and posted an online survey to seek guidance from the community on how to shape program goals. The feedback we received on where and how we should develop the program in regards to both restoration and building volunteerism was extremely useful. We have used that feedback in this document and in creating our annual plans and goals. See Appendix D for a summary of the public meeting input. Community Objective 1: Develop an outreach and education program For the public Materials and handouts will help explain and spread the word about the mission and goals of the Green Redmond Partnership. The materials should make their audience aware that Redmond’s valuable urban forests are threatened, and that the solution to the problem lies in the restoration strategy implemented by the Green Redmond Partnership. These materials must inspire both community participation and confidence in the Partnership’s restoration plan.

The starting point is to create a simple message that is appealing, motivating, and considers the needs of all partners (City agencies, schools, businesses, and community organizations). The Partnership is relatively far along in this process: a logo, information sheet, event banner, poster, PowerPoint presentation, and

website are already actively in use. Additional materials may include a brochure, training and education materials, and an outreach kit. For the media The Green Redmond Partnership will continue to engage the media to achieve our goals. Various media outlets, local community newspapers, and Redmond’s City television channel can be utilized to publicize volunteer events or new information on the Partnership’s progress. On the Green Redmond Partnership website, we will also provide additional information about our mission, management techniques, volunteer events, and invasive plants, including native plant alternatives.

As people learn of the challenge facing Redmond’s forests, we will also need to be clear in our message that the solution requires a significant investment of both volunteer time and resources. Increased public interest in forest restoration will help raise private dollars toward this cause, but we will also need to secure substantial permanent public funding for ongoing restoration and maintenance.

Community Objective 2: Identify and engage diverse community groups Several different groups have volunteered with Redmond Parks and Recreation in some capacity over the years. Through business volunteer days, neighborhood associations, faith-based organizations, youth groups, community service groups, school service-learning credits, and individual service hours,

Volunteers removing blackberry from Farrel-McWhirter Park


37

the Green Redmond Partnership will continue to engage the greater community in restoration. The Partnership will also work to reach new groups of volunteers to expand the program. The Partnership will:

• Organize, advertise, and host work parties.

• Host outreach booths at public events.

• Post informational signs in local parks where restoration and maintenance is occurring.

• Meet with community groups, businesses, homeowners associations, civic organizations, schools, youth groups, and nonprofits to educate them about the Partnership and seek volunteer support.

• Create a Forest Steward program that allows community members or groups to adopt a local natural area.

• Work with Earth Day events or United Way’s annual Day of Caring to attract local employers and large groups of volunteers.

• Use online networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Meetup.com) to reach out to individuals or groups with outdoor or stewardship interests and publicize upcoming restoration events and the Partnership’s approach to restoration.

• Work with teachers to implement field trips and outdoor classroom curricula designed around stewardship.

• Inform schools about service-learning potential for students.

• As an addition to the Forest Steward program, develop and publicize a Junior Forest Steward program. This program will allow high school students to pair with a local Forest Steward for a 4 or 8-month time span and assist with restoration events, outreach, and monitoring. If possible, we will seek out a partnership with local high school environmental science teachers.

Community Objective 3: Demonstrate appreciation for volunteers and seek their inputThe Green Redmond Partnership will work toward sustaining existing volunteers and recruiting new ones through recognizing volunteers’ accomplishments and tapping their expertise to improve the program.

We will celebrate volunteers’ achievements and emphasize the crucial role they play in restoring Redmond’s natural areas in several ways. Recognition of outstanding efforts and service will be published on the Green Redmond Partnership website and in local neighborhood newspapers. Each volunteer, if desired, will also become a Cascade Land Conservancy volunteer, which entitles them to invitations to special events, stewardship work parties, member hikes, and tours of conserved lands, as well as a subscription to Cascade Land Conservancy’s newsletter, providing information on conservation and stewardship projects throughout the region.

Volunteers are also a valuable source of on-the-ground expertise. Consistent with our adaptive management approach, we will ask volunteers to provide input on our annual work plan. We will track volunteer efforts and results in our tree-iage system, and will seek their advice on which BMPs work well and which may need reassessment.

Community volunteers at Perrigo Park


38

Community Objective 4: Develop a Forest Steward program The intent of the Forest Steward program is to build a legacy of volunteer-driven restoration, maintenance, and stewardship around natural areas. This program will provide regular volunteers with additional opportunities and challenges, as well as resource support on a multiyear timescale. In the first 5 years, we expect to train and support 15 active volunteer Forest Stewards in best management practices, volunteer management and motivation, and reporting. The Forest Stewards will direct other volunteers in the field and act as leaders in their communities. Forest Stewards will garner support for their local forests and natural areas. We will support them with staff time, resources, and guidance in site planning and restoration work.

We will provide opportunities for new Forest Stewards to do the following:

• Serve as key contacts for the Green Redmond Partnership.

• Organize and lead volunteer events and activities in the Steward’s park.

• Coordinate with staff to develop site restoration plans.

• Complete an annual report on restoration activities.

• Attend regular training events as resources allow.

Reaching out to our existing volunteer network will be a top priority. Many seasoned veterans of long-term fieldwork have numerous years of valuable restoration and forest management experience

Community Objective 5: Encourage businesses to contribute to program goals Business contributions to the Green Redmond Partnership will include:

• Employee participation in Green Redmond Partnership events

• Cash donations

• Opportunities to sponsor volunteer events

• In-kind contributions (such as equipment, materials, and food for volunteer events)

• Refraining from planting or selling invasive plants

We will seek out business participation, including donations and in-kind contributions, for the Green Redmond Partnership. We will also recruit corporate sponsors to hold employee stewardship events at Green Redmond Partnership sites and request that business contribute the supplies and materials necessary for these events. In turn, we will offer incentives such as special recognition and publicity for supporting the Partnership.

We will encourage landscape supply businesses to refrain from selling plants listed as “Weeds of Concern” by the King County Noxious Weed Control Board. The Partnership will work with businesses directly and through the outreach programs of King County and the state universities to provide education on invasive plants and suitable alternatives for sale. We will also seek opportunities to convey our message at local garden fairs and on gardening shows aired on local television channels. Community Objective 6: Work to engage and educate private landowners While stewardship on public lands is an important step toward increasing canopy cover, protecting habitat for wildlife, improving water quality, and providing recreation opportunities to the public, private lands cover a greater extent of the city. Activities that occur on these private lands can greatly degrade the condition of our public natural areas despite our best efforts to care for them. For instance, English ivy growing as Forest Stewards learning how to run a work party


39

a border plant in a landowner’s backyard can quickly escape into a park either by spreading beyond the property line or by birds dispersing its seeds. Many invasive species also spread when yard waste is illegally dumped in parks. In fact, these are the common ways in which natural areas become infested with invasive species. Alternatively, landowners can also be a great resource for their neighborhood parks by engaging their neighbors, schools, community groups, clubs, and businesses to help the cause. In addition, private land can also be a main source for retaining tree canopy and acquiring additional or expanding current natural areas. Privately owned natural areas in good health can serve as important buffers to adjacent public park land and mitigate edge effects.

Potential ways for the Green Redmond Partnership to educate and engage private landowners as an important constituency include:

• Develop mailings and handouts to inform residents about the problems facing our natural areas, the solution offered through the Green Redmond Partnership, the benefits of removing invasive species from their properties (in addition to the parks) and replacing them with native or noninvasive ornamental species, and how they can get involved.

• Provide information about active forest management and the Green Redmond Partnership on the City and Green Redmond websites, park kiosks, neighborhood newsletters, and local papers.

• Work with larger programs such as the National Wildlife Federation’s Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program or School Yard Project to develop a community restoration or maintenance program.

• Train landowners in BMPs through the Forest Steward program.

• Create plant lists for developers and landowners that discourage invasive species and promote native or noninvasive species and tree retention.

Resources OverviewFunding, staff, and volunteer resources will define the extent to which the Green Redmond Partnership can restore all of Redmond’s 1,035 acres of forested natural areas. In addition to volunteer

support, it is estimated to cost approximately $5.4 million to accomplish the goals of the Partnership. Funding from the City will be matched by in-kind support from volunteers, which is expected to leverage close to $2.9 million in value over the 20 years of the program. Depending on City resources, corporate partners, foundations, and private donors may also play an important role in funding.

We anticipate reaching just over 14,000 volunteer hours per year in 2015, the peak of new-acre enrollment, and 24,000 volunteer hours in 2018, when we tackle the largest volume of high-labor acres. Volunteer work may range from a single, dedicated individual to a neighborhood group, large community group, or business. Volunteer efforts will be essential to accomplishing work objectives and building citywide community support. At the end of the 20 years, a growing contribution of time from volunteers will be integral to the monitoring and maintenance of all 1,035 acres and will require continued support from the City and partners.

To support and maintain this level of volunteer and field needs, staff resources will be bolstered to accommodate volunteer recruitment, coordination, training, and recognition. This strengthening of staff resources will help keep volunteer productivity high and ensure positive experiences. Resources Objective 1: Estimate total program costs In 2005, the Green Seattle Partnership estimated the costs of restoring 2,500 acres of forested parkland over 20 years. They relied on estimates of past costs for removing invasive species, replanting, and ongoing maintenance, and estimates for staff needs and costs associated with additional fieldwork, materials, planning, program design and management, funding


40

development, outreach and marketing, and field and office overhead.

For the Green Redmond Partnership, we started with the Green Seattle Partnership’s original estimates (inflated to 2008 dollars) and adjusted them to reflect Redmond’s staff and funding capacity and current costs associated with restoration-related activities. Given that most of Redmond’s parks are already in better condition than those in Seattle — a majority of Redmond’s acres are in tree-iage category 1 — and that Redmond’s park system is smaller, the Green Redmond Partnership will require lower field costs, fewer staff, and lower overhead than the Green Seattle Partnership.

Using a cost model that prioritizes acres by tree-iage categories (starting with 1 and working through to 9) over 20 years, we can calculate average costs per acre for each tree-iage category (see Table 14). For the Green Redmond Partnership, we estimate that enrolling all 1,035 acres in active management will cost anywhere from $3,300 per acre for tree-iage category 1 acres to $25,300 per acre for tree-iage category 9 acres. These costs per tree-iage category are specific for Redmond and the length of the program; they will need to be adjusted for use in other areas and program durations. Based on the adjusted estimates, we anticipate that it will cost approximately $5.4 million to implement the Green Redmond Partnership through 2028. Although this is a high number, the cost of effectively

managing these lands solely using paid crews would be far more expensive – and would not ensure long-term success or community ownership. Working side by side with volunteers, the Green Redmond Partnership will leverage an additional $2.9 million in value from volunteers over the course of the project (see Figure 9). Resources Objective 2: Continue current City funding During the first 5 years (2009–2013), in addition to staff support, the City will direct existing funding streams to Partnership efforts. City funding in the near term may come from the following sources: Park Operations Budget Park Operations is responsible for managing a variety of maintenance programs that support a high-quality, diverse park system. These programs are funded from both general fund and levy sources. A portion of the funds dedicated to the Park Operations Urban Forestry work group supports activities defined by the Green Redmond Partnership. Park Operations will be taking the lead role in funding the Green Redmond Partnership as it moves forward. Tree Fund The Tree Fund is available for planting trees, planting preparation, and work to save existing canopy trees threatened by invasive species. This will be an important source of funding for increased forest management efforts by the City as part of the Green Redmond Partnership. Stormwater Fund The Stormwater Fund can be used for stormwater issues, education, planning, research, or maintaining water quality relating to stormwater. This funding could potentially be directed toward stream or wetland restoration in parks where stormwater management is a concern. Neighborhood Matching Fund The Neighborhood Matching Fund provides cash or in-kind services from the City for a neighborhood project to be carried out by community members. The neighborhood matches the City’s contribution with

Tree-iage Category

Project Acres

Average Restoration Costs/Acre

Total Cost/Category

1 870 $3,300 $2,871,0002 5 $11,100 $55,5003 19 $15,000 $285,0004 28 $8,400 $235,2005 27 $14,500 $391,5006 12 $18,600 $223,2007 42 $13,000 $546,0008 6 $21,400 $128,4009 26 $25,300 $657,800

1,035 $5.4 million

Table 14: Estimated cost of restoration (rounded to the nearest hundred)


41

local resources of volunteer labor, donated materials or professional services, or cash. A grant is awarded on the basis of merit to two or more residents of Redmond from separate households, with a maximum of $5,000 available per project. King Conservation District The King Conservation District provides grants for conservation work to be done through City departments. Past work in Redmond, as well as other Green City Partnerships, has been funded through this source. Transfer of Development Rights An active Transfer of Development Rights program could identify additional property in need of restoration. A portion of the revenue could be directed toward the maintenance of conserved or restored properties.

Other Funding Other sources of funding exist for acquiring, developing, renovating, and maintaining parks, trails, and open spaces. Federal, state, county, city, corporate, and other grants may come into play in the future, depending on the nature of the grant and the progress of the Green Redmond Partnership. Resources Objective 3: Develop long-term stable funding To meet our goals, funding for the Green Redmond Partnership will need to be increased from approximately $120,000/year in 2009 to just over $540,000/year in 2018, when the largest volume of high-cost acres are being enrolled in the program (see Figure 11). Beginning in 2020, costs are anticipated to decrease to an average of $240,000/year through the end of the program, leveling out around $230,000/year to support the ongoing maintenance and monitoring of all 1,035 acres. Over the next few years, we will lay the groundwork for establishing long-term public funding sources to meet this need. Several possible funding

Figure 9: 20-year funding projections for the Green Redmond Partnership


42

mechanisms could be drawn upon either separately or in combination to meet the stable public-funding goal:

• Identify and apply for federal, state, and local grants.

• Propose a Park Bond Initiative such as a natural-area restoration, acquisition, and companion maintenance levy package.

• Increase fees or rates for utility ratepayers for management of forested natural areas as stormwater management infrastructure and for other ecosystem services.

• Include Green Redmond Partnership funding in a countywide levy.

• Seek separate state and federal funding for forest restoration.

• Set up an endowment that would generate enough annual interest to support the Partnership.

• Draw on the Tree Fund for upland restoration and the Stormwater Fund for work with riparian restoration projects in natural areas.

• Assess the feasibility of market-based mechanisms (carbon credits and stormwater mitigation).

• Identify local corporations and businesses that could support the Partnership.

• Offer opportunities for financial contributions if volunteering is not an option.

Resources Objective 4: Review and update current programs and policies to improve stewardshipCurrently, Redmond has several programs and policies that could be updated and drawn upon to support the goals of the Partnership. The following updates and improvements to existing policies will have a positive effect on stewardship:

• Allow for Native Growth Protection Easements to foster active landowner management rather than a hands-off approach. This will require training and educating landowners to facilitate

engagement and long-term responsible stewardship.

• Coordinate restoration and stewardship efforts across City departments and programs to maximize volunteers, resources, communications, outreach, education, and funding capacity.

• Update the Recommended Plant List in Redmond’s Community Development Guide to include plants that are native to the Western Cascade Region and remove plants that are considered invasive.

• Use language from the Redmond Comprehensive Plan demonstrating alignment of Partnership and City goals to leverage funding from various sources.

Resources Objective 5: Provide sufficient staff to support fieldwork, volunteer management, and Partnership programs Volunteer Management Currently, there is one staff member in the Parks and Recreation Department and one in the Public Works Department who dedicate a portion of their time to volunteer management. As the Green Redmond Partnership approaches its goal of 14,000 volunteer hours in 2015, approximately a 15-fold increase from volunteer numbers before the inception of the Partnership, at least one full-time employee will need to be dedicated to managing and coordinating restoration volunteer efforts. This position will track volunteer time, recognize volunteer achievements, recruit additional volunteers, and could additionally run the Forest Steward program, discussed below. The Cascade Land Conservancy will initially play a major role in volunteer management and regular volunteer events to help incorporate the experience gained through implementing the Green Seattle Partnership. As a structure becomes established, City of Redmond Park Operations staff will take the lead in this area.


43

Forest Steward Program Management and Training As the Green Redmond Partnership program evolves and volunteers step forward to adopt local parks, an orientation and training program will be held for volunteers interested in a higher level of commitment than attending occasional Parks-led volunteer events. These Forest Stewards will allow the Partnership to increase community leadership on the ground and therefore its capacity to reach more restoration sites. Forest Stewards will lead volunteer events, create work plans, track restoration progress, and apply for small grants to manage their sites. This program will also keep regular volunteers interested by providing a challenging and diverse array of work, and increased ownership over the results. The Green Seattle Partnership has created a successful Forest Steward Program and management strategy that will be used as a model for the Green Redmond Partnership. A staff member will be needed to coordinate the Forest Steward program, including training new Stewards, working with them to develop site plans, coordinating their efforts, and keeping track of their accomplishments toward Partnership goals. This role could be incorporated into the duties of the Volunteer Manager above, or filled by a different staff member. Park Operations staff will ultimately be responsible for the Forest Steward program, with a large amount of help from the Cascade Land Conservancy staff to start the program running smoothly. Outreach and Education Staff time for education and outreach will be instrumental in increasing volunteer capacity to 14,000 hours by 2015 and 24,000 by 2018. Reaching the broader Redmond public will require a full-time employee dedicated to outreach and education, which will be led by Park Operations staff and helped by Recreation, Public Works, and the Mayor’s Office when appropriate. Cascade Land Conservancy can help fill some of this role

during the first few years of the program. Park Operations will also coordinate with the City’s Communications Department to take advantage of outreach opportunities that exist through its publications and products. Communications and Marketing This role is linked to the duties of the volunteer manager and the outreach and education specialist, and includes creating and implementing a communications and marketing plan. This will help the Partnership increase visibility and recruit volunteers, as well as increase funding for the program by reaching a wider audience. This role will also help develop a common message that is clear among departments and to the public. Lastly, this work is crucial to getting press releases, news events, and other information to the media. This work will be housed within the Parks and Recreation Department. Field Restoration Redmond city staff alone cannot meet the management needs of all 1,035 acres by 2029. Through the Green Redmond Partnership, volunteer labor and community leadership will play a major role in filling the gap. The City’s urban forestry staff will continue to play a lead role in evaluating and managing Redmond’s forested natural areas, especially as more volunteers are brought in to help restoration work. Besides its own natural-area crew, Parks and Recreation will contract with professional crews for some fieldwork on Partnership sites. Additionally, the city might consider increasing its seasonal crew or hiring a year-round crew dedicated to forest natural-area restoration, with one full-time employee to manage this activity. Training in restoration best management practices will be necessary. Fund Development and Management Identifying and maintaining stable funding is crucial to supporting the efforts of the Partnership. Once a detailed funding plan is established, it


44

will need to be managed and tracked to ensure accountability. This will be housed within the Parks and Recreation Department, who will oversee all of the Partnership’s funding, and can be a large role if many small funding sources are compiled, or less intensive if funding is derived from one or a few larger sources. This role may incorporate grant writing.

Resources Objective 6: Support job-training programs and deploy paid crewsPaid crews will be needed for priority sites that lack sufficient volunteer support or sites with difficult conditions that are unsafe or otherwise inappropriate for volunteers. Some sites containing extreme invasive plant infestations, steep slopes, riparian areas, and wetlands may be better suited to Park Operations crews or contracted crews.

The Partnership will prioritize contracting with organizations that provide training and development for a “green-collar” workforce with living wages and stable jobs focused on forest habitat management. The following activities will support this objective:

• Park Operations staff will continue to work on key management efforts, hazard trees, volunteer support, and training for Forest Stewards to increase community capacity.

• Nonprofit employment training crews (such as Washington Conservation Corps, Volunteers for Outdoor Washington, Student Conservation Association, and EarthCorps) will be hired for fieldwork at difficult sites and occasionally for volunteer management at large events.

• Private landscaping and habitat restoration companies (commercial crews) will be hired for highly technical projects as budget and need dictate.

Resources Objective 7: Increase volunteer engagement to 150,000 hours over 20 years. Over 20 years, volunteers will provide close to

150,000 hours, valued at $2.9 million, based on the 2008 Independent Sector valuation of a volunteer hour at $19.53 per hour in Washington State. To put this number in perspective, if every Redmond resident contributed only 3 hours over the entire 20-year program, we would achieve our restoration and maintenance goals.

To meet the needs of all volunteers, the Green Redmond Partnership will need to provide several ways in which volunteers can participate. We will hold a variety of large volunteer events in conjunction with community groups and businesses. Through the Forest Steward program, we will support community leaders to coordinate and develop regular work parties that volunteers can attend as often as they wish. Active management at these sites will range from large invasive removal projects and planting native species to monitoring past restoration.

We will provide opportunities for individuals of varying physical ability and time commitment to get involved, and we will encourage increasing levels of volunteerism. Volunteers who participate in one-day events with a business or community group will be invited to participate in ongoing work parties. Frequent volunteers may be interested in increasing their involvement as Forest Stewards. To do this, we will need to keep existing volunteers motivated by showing them how their efforts, in concert with those of many other volunteers, have a significant impact in maintaining and restoring Redmond’s forested natural areas.

If every Redmond resident contributed only 3 hours to the Green Redmond Partnership, we would achieve our goal of restoring and maintaining Redmond’s valuable forested areas in 20 years.

If every Redmond resident attended just one 4-hour work party, we would far surpass our goals!

149,578 hours ÷ 51,300 Redmond residents = 2.92 hours per person

redmond volunteer contribution


45

There are numerous other volunteer activities for those who are uninterested or unable to participate in physical fieldwork, including photography, database and administration work, publicity and marketing, fundraising, and sponsor recruitment.

In addition to encouraging current volunteers, we will recruit new volunteers through community outreach and emphasize the critical need and the important role volunteers play in effective management. We will also use partnerships with community, youth groups, businesses, and schools to introduce new volunteers to the program.

An important component of outreach efforts will involve contacting neighborhoods that have not traditionally participated in forest restoration or environmental stewardship. We will increase outreach to these neighborhoods by working with local community groups, youth organizations, schools, and businesses. We will post informational signs at park sites, and send letters to neighbors describing the work underway and inviting them to participate. We will work to strengthen ties with local Redmond schools and provide opportunities for students who want to complete community service requirements for graduation.

Resources Objective 8: Increase productivity by providing support and materials to volunteers

The Green Redmond Partnership projects will involve community groups, individual volunteers, staff from the City of Redmond and the Cascade Land Conservancy, and paid crews. We will help volunteer groups identify maintenance and restoration needs, obtain materials and tools, develop site plans, conduct BMP trainings, coordinate large events, and write grant applications. We will increase fieldwork efficiency by creating clear lines of communication, coordination, easy access to resources, and support.

The Partnership will provide the following resources:

• Forest Steward training events and the Green Redmond Partnership Forest Steward Field Guide

• Project monitoring and documentation to assess and track restoration efforts

• Outreach materials and help with recruiting volunteers

• Restoration materials such as plants, mulch, and tools

• Volunteer networking between Forest Steward groups

• Help with maintenance

Tools ready for a work party

EarthCorps crew member at Perrigo Park


46

IV. Adaptive ManagementThe primary goal of the Green Redmond Partnership is to reestablish and maintain a healthy, sustainable urban forest in perpetuity for the people of Redmond. The Partnership is an intensive, one-time intervention to restore the health of Redmond’s urban forests through community action, volunteer effort, and strategic restoration planning. After 20 years, labor and funding needs will be reduced to a maintenance level but will continue to exist. We can achieve our final goal of a healthy forest only by careful management of resources.

Urban forests are complex ecosystems influenced by both natural factors and the human systems that surround them. These human systems that impact and ultimately must care for these ecosystems are equally complex. Any strategy to restore and maintain our urban forested parklands must systematically address all of the factors that affect the health of those lands. In response to this complexity, we have developed an adaptive management model.

Adaptive management systematically improves management policies and practices. It is a repeating cycle of 6 steps: problem assessment, strategy development, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and strategy adjustment. Once an evaluation is complete, new information gathered from monitoring is used to reassess the problem and develop new strategies as needed. Then implementation, monitoring, and evaluation occur, and the cycle begins again (see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Adaptive management framework cycle

This section describes how we will apply adaptive management to the measures developed with the Balanced Scorecard to track progress and measure success (see Figure 11 and Table 15). The Balanced Scorecard approach to strategy development and monitoring helps ensure that we successfully implement all aspects of the restoration strategy necessary to reach our goal of restoring 1,035 acres by the end of 2028. Simply monitoring fieldwork at the outcome end of our strategy would not allow us to anticipate problems in their design. The Balanced Scorecard allows us to track that we have created the resources and community support necessary for accomplishing the fieldwork.

MonitoringTwo types of information will help us analyze effectiveness: program monitoring and field monitoring. Monitoring allows us to improve design and performance of the Partnership programs by measuring the effectiveness of strategies and techniques used. We will feed the results of monitoring back into our planning and methodology to increase effectiveness. Monitoring and evaluation will also provide accountability to funding sources and supporters of the Green Redmond Partnership and ensure that we are meeting our goals. Program Monitoring Plan At the close of each year, the staff of the Green Redmond Partnership will collect data on the measures of the balanced scorecard and track progress toward the annual work plan goals and 5-year benchmarks. We will develop data management systems to record information pertinent to these measurements throughout the year so that progress can easily be summarized at year’s end. For example, data on participants in volunteer events will be entered into a database we will use to track the number of participants at events and the number of times an individual volunteers per year.

Figure 11 is a balanced Scorecard for the three key elements of implementing the 20-year plan: fieldwork, resources, and community. By measuring progress toward each objective, we can assess the effectiveness of the strategies in our implementation plan described in the Implementation section. We need to track the

Assess

Define Strategy

Implement

Monitor

Adjust

Evaluate


47

effectiveness of our activities throughout the life of the plan and, through adaptive management, make adjustments when necessary. Field Monitoring Plan As we proceed with the restoration and maintenance program, we will also be conducting routine monitoring of project parks to track the condition and health of restored forest sites and gauge our progress. Our success will rely heavily on developing and refining effective strategies to remove and control invasive plants. A field-monitoring plan will be developed to include two levels of monitoring: basic fieldwork monitoring and additional analysis of the permanent plots established in 9 of the parks during the initial tree-iage assessment in 2008.

To monitor fieldwork, we will track each of the 1,035 acres as they are brought into active management. Volunteer and paid crew time will be devoted to

revisiting sites that have been previously worked on and assessing their ongoing needs. These urban parks will always be subject to pressure from their surroundings. Although the work needed decreases dramatically each year that an area goes through the program, Phase 4 of restoration is carried out indefinitely.

The Partnership will also track the progress of restoration and maintenance using a Geographic Information System to map all acres and record the work as it is done. This will allow us to supplement on-the-ground monitoring with a spatial tracking system to guide our work plans and direct resources where they are most needed each year.

Figure 11: Balanced scorecard strategy map

Restore and Maintain 1,035 Acres by 2029

resources

Fieldwork

community

Volunteer laborFinancial resources Continue existing

municipal funding

Develop long-term

stable funding

Paid staFF

Provide staff to support fieldwork, volunteer

management, and Partnership

programs

Deploy paid crews for sites lacking sufficent

volunteer support and challenging conditions

Increase volunteer hours to

~13,000/year by 2014

Provide support and materials to volunteers

residents support/demand active management of forested parklands

Create broad understanding of

problem and support for Partnership as

solution

Encourage business to contribute to program

goals

Volunteers are committed, enthusiastic partners

Demonstrate appreciation for volunteers and seek their input

Recruit and train Forest Stewards in volunteer

management and BMPs

Engage community groups in

restoration and maintenance

EValuate conditions and prioritize sites

using the tree-iage model

ImPlement restoration and maintenance to optimize ecological function

Use 4-phase approach Follow BMPs

Monitor and maintain sites over the

longterm


48

Objective Measure

Restore and maintain 1,035 acres of forested parkland by 2029. # of acres restored to annual goal

Fieldwork: All 1,035 acres are restored by 2029

Evaluate Evaluate conditions and prioritize sites for restoration # sites evaluated, prioritized

Plan Develop an annual work plan Annual work plan identifying active management sites completed

Implement Implement management projects optimizing ecological function

# of site management plans completed # of acres entered into active management Best practices updated annually

Monitor Monitor and maintain sites over the long term Annual monitoring report Maintenance performed as indicated

Community: An informed, involved, and active civic community supports the Green Redmond Partnership.

Community

Educate and engage community about problem and solution through Green Redmond Partnership

Outreach and education program materials developed

Community supports and demands active management of forested parklands through widespread understanding of the issue and support of Green Redmond Partnership as solution

% of residents volunteering each year # of return volunteers

Volunteers

Engage youth and community organizations in management and monitoring

# of groups participating in events # of hours contributed

Encourage businesses to contribute to program goals

# of businesses supporting program through sponsorship, in-kind contributions, or volunteer events # of businesses that stop selling invasive plants

Train Forest Stewards in volunteer management and BMPs

# of Forest Stewards trained and actively holding events

Demonstrate appreciation for volunteers and seek input into program

# of volunteer suggestions implemented # of volunteer recognition activities

Resources: Sufficient resources are available to actively manage sites and provide long-term maintenance.

FinancialContinue current funding $ budgeted and sourced to meet management

requirements

Develop long-term, stable public funding source Mechanisms in place by 2014 sufficient to meet need

Paid Staff and Labor

Provide sufficient staff to support field work, volunteer management, and Partnership programs

# staff/crew dedicated # acres entered into restoration by staff/crew

Hire paid crews for priority sites lacking volunteer support or sites with difficult conditions

% of priority sites in annual plan not being restored by volunteer efforts entered into restoration% of contract crews trained in BMPs

Volunteer Labor

Increase number of volunteer hours to 14,000 per year by 2015 and 24,000 by 2018

# of hours to annual goal, value contribution of volunteer (staff cost per volunteer hour)

Increase productivity by providing support and materials to volunteers

$ and hours/acre enrolled Staff cost per volunteer hour

Table 15: Green Redmond Partnership Balanced Scorecard


49

Resources Distribution Funding for the Green Redmond Partnership will be housed entirely within the Park Operations budget for the first two years. After that, Park Operations will continue to oversee the funding for the program and will work toward generating public funding and donations from outside sources throughout the duration of the Partnership’s 20-year span. The Partnership will allocate funds to our three program areas — fieldwork, resource and community — in proportions that will change over time to ensure that the basic goals of the program are achieved. As we grow from single-park efforts to a citywide program, we will shift the emphasis of funding from program development to support of fieldwork. Table 16 demonstrates the evolution of fund distribution over the plan’s 20-year time period.

As funds increase over time, the forest management budget will expand from funding the Green Redmond Partnership staff time to include additional fieldwork contractors. We will incorporate implementation tools such as BMPs into their contracts. New crews will be added through the 20 years of the Partnership to plateau in 2028 at a number that supports volunteers in the continual maintenance of forested parklands.

At the front end, we will direct significant resources to forming critical relationships, distributing electronic advertisements and mailers, and using large-event planning and publicity to create public interest and recognition of the Green Redmond Partnership. As visibility and recognition increase, increased levels of public and private funding will support increased volunteer participation. The role of volunteers will continue beyond 2028, since forested parklands will need ongoing volunteer support and stewardship.

Reporting and Sharing KnowledgeThe Green Redmond Partnership’s progress will be reported annually to partners, members, and the public. We will adapt our actions and annual work plans in response to available funding, monitoring results, and emerging knowledge of successful techniques.

We will encourage Forest Stewards and partner organizations to review the annual reports. Partnership staff will also be encouraged to engage experts across the region to develop new methods in urban forest management and inventive outreach strategies. Green Redmond staff will be encouraged to attend conferences hosted by regional restoration groups, of which many of our volunteers are members, and which provide an opportunity for staff to share information and learn from other agencies. Our written products, including the Forest Steward Field Guide, will be posted on the Green Redmond website; we will ask all parties using these resources to give feedback on our methods and materials.

Program AreaPercent of Total Green Redmond Partnership Budget

2009–2011 2012–2013 2014–2018 2019–2028

Fieldwork 35% 35% 55% 75%

Community 40% 30% 20% 10%

Resources 15% 25% 15% 5%

Administration 10% 10% 10% 10%

Table 16: Funding distribution by program area


50

V. References American Forests. 1998. Regional ecosystem analysis of Puget Sound metropolitan area. Final Report 7/25/1998. Washington, D.C.: American Forests.

Boersma P. D., S. H. Reichard, and A. N. Van Buren. 2006. Invasive Species in the Pacific Northwest. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

de Gruijl F. R. 1999. Skin cancer and solar radiation. European Journal of Cancer 35(14): 2003–09.

Dwyer J. F. In G. E. McPherson, H. W. Schroeder, and R. A. Rowntree. 1992. Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 18(5):227–34.

Geiger J. 2002. Controlling stormwater runoff. Davis (CA): USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. Urban Forest Research, July 2002.

Herrington L. P. 1974. Trees and acoustics in urban areas. Journal of Forestry 72(8):462–65.

Logvasi G. S., J. W. Quinn, K. M. Neckermann, M. S. Perzanowski, and A. Rundle. 2008. Children living in areas with more trees have a lower prevalence of asthma. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2008(62):647–49.

McPherson E. G., S. Maco, R. Simpson, P. Peper, Q. Xiao, A. VanDerZanden, and N. Bell. 2002. Western Washington and Oregon community tree guide: Benefits, costs and strategic planning. Silverton: International Society of Arboriculture, Pacific Northwest Chapter.

McPherson E. G., D. J. Nowak, and R. A. Rowntree. 1994. Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Gen Tech. Rep. NE-186. Radnor, PA: U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Nowak D.J., and D. E. Crane. 2001. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental Pollution 116:381–89.

Osborne L. L., and D. A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 1993(29):243–58.

Pimentel D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50(1):53–65.

Ruiz-Jaén M. C., and T. M. Aide. 2006. An integrated approach for measuring urban forest restoration success. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4(2006):55–68.

Sanders, R. A. 1986. Urban vegetation impacts on the hydrology of Dayton, Ohio. Urban Ecology (9):361–76.

Schroeder H. W. 1989. Environment, behavior, and design research on urban forests. In Advances in environment, behavior, and design. E. H. Zube and G. T. Moore, eds. New York: Plenum.

Smithwick E. A. H., M. E. Harmon, S. M. Remillard, S. A. Acker, and J. F. Franklin. 2002. Potential upper bounds of carbon stores in forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications 12(5):1303–17.

Soule M. E. 1991. Conservation: Tactics for a constant crisis. Science 253:744–50.

Tyrväinen L., and A. Miettiner. 2000. Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39: 205–23.

Ulrich R. S., R. F. Simons, B. D. Losito, E. Forito, M. A. Miles, and M. Zelson. 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1991(11):201–30.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2008. Bear-Evans Watershed temperature and dissolved oxygen total maximum daily load water quality improvement report. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 08-10-058.

Xiao Q., E. G. McPherson, J. R. Simpson, and S. L. Ustin. 1998. Rainfall interception by Sacramento’s urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 24(4):235–44.


51

Appendix A: Distribution of Tree-iage Categories in Each Park

ParkAcres per Tree-iage Category

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total

Arthur Johnson Park 0.40 8.64 2.64 11.68

Bear and Evans Creek Greenway 5.59 2.11 17.10 8.17 32.97

Bear Creek Park 5.05 4.80 9.85

Bridle Crest Trail Site 10.86 10.86

Cascade View Neighborhood Park 0.34 4.42 4.76

Conrad Olson Farm 4.70 4.70

East Valley NGPE 2.41 9.76 5.29 17.46

Farrel-McWhirter Park 44.04 0.62 9.42 54.08

Grass Lawn Community Park 5.59 5.59

Hartman Community Park 10.48 2.41 3.41 16.30

Heron Rookery 4.56 4.56

Idylwood Beach Park 2.17 4.24 0.47 6.88

Juel Community Park 15.25 8.91 24.16

Meadow Neighborhood Park 2.24 2.24

Nike Neighborhood Park 9.70 9.70

Northeast Redmond Neighborhood Park

4.52 4.52

Perrigo Community Park 5.64 3.45 9.09

Redmond West Wetlands 2.69 1.37 4.06

Viewpoint Neighborhood Park 3.64 3.64

Viewpoint Open Space 9.40 9.40

Watershed Preserve 763.46 18.4 781.86

Westside Neighborhood Park 2.62 1.07 3.69

Willows Creek Neighborhood Park 1.11 1.90 3.01

Total Acres per Tree-iage Category 869.84 5.05 19.16 27.8 26.67 12.11 42.04 6.09 26.30 1,035.06


52

Appendix B: Near-Term and Long-Term Strategic Plan and BenchmarksneAr-term strAtegic plAn: 2009–2013

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fiel

dwor

k

Enroll 2 acres in initial restoration

Enroll 3 new acres in initial restoration and 4 acres in maintenance and monitoring




Fine-tune monitoring protocols

Continue restoration on 2 acres

Continue restoration and maintenance on 9 acres

Continue restoration and maintenance on 24 acres

Continue restoration and maintenanceon 84 acres

Monitor progress Monitor progress Monitor progress Monitor progress

Com

mun

ity

Recruit and manage ~800 volunteer hours

Recruit and manage ~1,300 volunteer hours




Create volunteer-tracking database

6 active Forest Stewards

10 active Forest Stewards; at least one per priority park



Create Forest Stewards program, hold training for 6 individuals

Media campaign focused on success stories and branding

Media campaign focused on success stories involving Forest Stewards, volunteers, and corporate participation

Media campaign focused on supporting a levy (or other public funding mechanism)

Launch political campaign around levy

Publicize in local media (problem-focused)

Work with schools to develop youth steward plan

Media campaign focused on outcomes from funding

Res

ourc

es

Identify and pursue stable funding sources

Develop business participation program

Create campaign plan

Finalize campaign plan

Implement campaign plan

Train staff in BMPs

Partner with other city departments to develop joint stewardship and restoration goals and share BMPs

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Begin planning for long-range management structure

Finalize plans for management structure

Establish working Executive Council and Management Team

Publish 20-Year Forest Management Plan

Write 2010 annual report




Develop 2010 work plan






53

long-term strAtegic plAn: 2014–20282014–2018 2019–2023 2024–2028

Fiel

dwor

k

Enroll 25 new acres in initial restoration per year and 50 acres per year in maintenance and monitoring

Enroll final 5 new acres in initial restoration and 50 acres per year in maintenance and monitoring

Enroll 50 acres per year in maintenance and monitoring

Continue restoration and maintenance on all previously enrolled acres



Com

mun

ity

An active Forest Steward group working in 50% of project parks

An active Forest Steward group working in 100% of project parks

Continue active Forest Steward program

Recruit and manage an average of ~13,000 volunteer hours per year

Recruit and manage an average of ~8,400 volunteers hours per year

Recruit and manage an average of ~4,800 volunteer hours per year

Res

ourc

es

Reevaluate BMPs and program costs based on first 5 years of fieldwork

Evaluate and update methodology

Evaluate and update methodology

Funding sources providing $1.9 million for 5 years



Adm

inis

trat

ion Create 5-year Strategic Plan Create 5-year Strategic Plan Complete 20-year progress

report

Establish public funding base Create plan for future forest management


54

Appendix C: Site-Specific Information for Priority ParksThe data that was collected from the forest inventory and ground verification was compiled to create a snapshot of the current park conditions. In addition, we also developed overarching restoration suggestions that will need to be revised for restoration work being done on a smaller scale.

Permanent plots were established in Bridle Crest Trail Site, Grass Lawn Community Park, Hartman Community Park, Heron Rookery, Idylwood Beach Park, Redmond West Wetlands, Viewpoint Neighborhood Park, Viewpoint Open Space, and Westside Neighborhood Park. These parks received additional detailed analyses of canopy and understory vegetation and invasive species cover.

12

4

6

5 3

9

10

11

87

pArk nAme mAp #Arthur Johnson Park 7Bear and Evans Creek Greenway 7Bear Creek Park 8Bridle Crest Trail Site 9Cascade View Neighborhood Park 10Conrad Olson Farm 7East Valley Native Growth Protection Easement 5Farrel-McWhirter Park 3Grass Lawn Community Park 9Hartman Community Park 5Heron Rookery 9Idylwood Beach Park 11Juel Community Park 3Meadow Neighborhood Park 4Nike Neighborhood Park 8Northeast Redmond Neighborhood Park 2Perrigo Community Park 7Redmond West Westlands 9Viewpoint Neighborhood Park 11Viewpoint Open Space 11Watershed Preserve 1Westside Neighborhood Park 9Willows Creek Neighborhood Park 6


55

Green Redmond Partnership: Map 1Habitat Management Units (HMUs) byTree-iage Categories

Tree-iage data collected by InternationalForestry Consultants, Spring 2008.Aerial imagery provided byUSDA NAIP, 2006.

Tree-iage Categories

1 2 3

4 65

7 98

Tree

Com

posi

tion

Invasive Species Cover

Hardscapedor Landscaped

Open Water 1,200

Feet

®

Watershed Preserve and Trails

CC

AA

DD EE

BB

FF


56




1 2 3

4 65

7 98

Tree

Com

posi

tion



Open Water 270

Feet

®

Northeast RedmondNeighborhood Park AA


57




1 2 3

4 65

7 98

Tree

Com

posi

tion



Open Water 590

Feet

®

Farrel-McWhirter Park

Juel Community Park

CC

EE

EE

DD

BB

DD

AA

AA

BB

CC


58




1 2 3

4 65

7 98

Tree

Com

posi

tion



Open Water 250

Feet

®

Meadow Neighborhood Park

AA


59




1 2 3

4 65

7 98

Tree

Com

posi

tion



Open Water 640

Feet

®

Hartman Community Park

East Valley NGPE

AA

AA

CC

CCBB

DD

BB


60




1 2 3

4 65

7 98

Tree

Com

posi

tion



Open Water 250

Feet

®

Willows Creek Neighborhood Park

BBAA


61




1 2 3

4 65

7 98

Tree

Com

posi

tion



Open Water 820

Feet

®

Perrigo Community Park

Bear and Evans CreekGreenway

(Southern Portion)

Arthur Johnson Park

Conrad Olson Farm

Bear and Evans CreekGreenway

(Northern Portion)FF

CC

DD AA

AA

HH

BB

CC

DD

II

AABB

GG

AA BB

EE


62




1 2 3

4 65

7 98

Tree

Com

posi

tion



Open Water 740

Feet

®

Bear Creek Park

Nike Neighborhood Park

AA

AA

BB


63




1 2 3

4 65

7 98

Tree

Com

posi

tion



Open Water 860

Feet

®

Grass LawnCommunity Park

Bridle CrestTrail Site

Heron Rookery

WestsideNeighborhood Park

Redmond WestWetlands

AA

AA

AA

AA

AA

BB

BB


64




1 2 3

4 65

7 98

Tree

Com

posi

tion



Open Water 300

Feet

®

Cascade ViewNeighborhood Park

AA

BBCC


65




1 2 3

4 65

7 98

Tree

Com

posi

tion



Open Water 840

Feet

®

IdylwoodBeach Park

ViewpointOpen Space

ViewpointNeighborhood Park

AA

AA

BB

DDCC

AA


66

Arthur Johnson Park • Located in the Southeast Redmond

neighborhood south of Union Hill Road, adjacent to the southern section of Bear and Evans Creek Greenway

• 15.35 acres; 11.68 forested acres • 4 Habitat Management Units (HMUs):

a – tree-iage category 8: 0.6 acre in the northern area of the park. There is no dominant canopy cover. The understory of grass and willow also has a medium coverage of Scots broom and blackberry.

b – tree-iage category 2: 0.4 acre in the northeastern corner below Union Hill Road. A diverse canopy cover dominated by bigleaf maple and Douglas-fir and an understory of snowberry and Indian plum. There is also a small amount of blackberry in the understory.

C – tree-iage category 4: 8.64 acres encompassing a majority of the forested portion of the park and wrapping around HMU D. Moderate canopy cover consisting of bigleaf maple and Douglas-fir; the understory is dominated by snowberry and Indian plum and contains low blackberry coverage.

D – tree-iage category 8: 2.04 acres in the southern-central area of the park. There is no dominant canopy cover here. The understory is willow and grass, and there is a moderate amount of blackberry.

Aside from the forested area, the park contains open grass fields. There is some blackberry in the landscaped areas.

Invasive species removal will be necessary to inhibit additional spread of blackberry and other invasive species within the parks. Plantings will also be essential for keeping the invasives back, including conifers (to build the canopy layer), native understory, and ground species. Conifer and understory planting efforts should focus on HMU D, since understory and conifer planting in HMUs A and B will allow natural seeding to occur.

Bear and Evans Creek Greenway • Located in the Bear Creek neighborhood east of

Avondale Road, adjoining Perrigo Community Park to the east, and adjacent to Conrad Olson Farm on its north end across 95th Avenue; adjoining Arthur Johnson Park on its south end.

• 38.73 acres; 32.97 forested acres• 9 HMUs:

a – tree-iage category 7: 1.44 acres in the northern section of the park. Low canopy cover of cottonwood and alder; willow and woody shrubs in the understory. Low presence of invasive blackberry.

b – tree-iage category 4: 1.28 acres in the northwestern corner of the park. A moderately healthy overstory of mainly willow and Douglas-fir, with an understory of mostly grass and willow. There is also a small amount of blackberry in this HMU.

C – tree-iage category 6: 2.11 acres in the northern section of the park. A moderate canopy cover of mostly Douglas-fir and willow, with a native understory of willow. The understory in this HMU has been dominated by invasive blackberry.

D – tree-iage category 9: 7.42 acres in the central section of the park. There is little to no canopy cover in this HMU and a willow understory dominated by invasive blackberry.

E – tree-iage category 7: 0.37 acre in the center of the park. Low canopy cover of cottonwood and alder; willow and salmonberry in the understory. Low presence of invasive blackberry.

F – tree-iage category 7: 14.48 acres in the center of the park. The Evans Creek Trail runs along the eastern edge. A low canopy cover of cottonwood and red alder; willow and salmonberry in the understory. Low presence of invasive blackberry.

G – tree-iage category 9: 0.75 acre in the south section of the park. There is little to no canopy cover in this HMU and a willow understory dominated by invasive blackberry.

h – tree-iage category 4: 4.31 acres in the center of the park. The Evans Creek Trail and a tributary to


67

Evans Creek run through this HMU. A wet area with a moderate canopy cover of willow and birch and an understory of willow and sedge. Little to no invasive species presence.

i – tree-iage category 7: 0.81 acre in the southern section of the park with a 10% slope facing west. Low canopy cover of willow, with grasses and small willows in the understory. Low presence of invasive blackberry.

The Greenway is divided into two discontinuous pieces connected by the Bear and Evans Creek Trail. Bear Creek runs across the northern section between HMUs A, B, and C, and feeds into a pond.

There are many opportunities for restoration in the Bear and Evans Greenway. HMUs A, E, F, and I will need a lot of plantings, as they lack a hardy overstory to naturally recruit new growth. Before planting in HMUs C, D, and G, aggressive invasive removal will need to take place. Professional crews may be needed to start that work. Once blackberries are cleared, native plantings of both overstory and understory plants will be necessary to establish a healthy canopy layer and inhibit invasive species encroachment. HMUs B and H could be restored first so that they can serve as a model to volunteers of how sites in maintenance look. Bear Creek Park

• Located in downtown Redmond, east of Avondale Road and northeast of Town Center.


a – tree-iage category 1: 5.05 acres on the west side of the creek. Healthy oak and red cedar understory and a grass and salmonberry understory with low presence of invasive species.

b – tree-iage category 9: 4.80 acres on the east side of the creek. Sparse black cottonwood and willow are present with an understory of mostly grass and willow. Dense blackberry dominates this HMU.

Most of the restoration work will be needed on the east side of the creek in HMU B, since HMU A can be enrolled into monitoring and maintenance once minimal invasive species are removed and some

additional underplanting is done. Major removal of blackberry throughout HMU B should be done in stages, and a professional crew may be necessary. In Phase 2 of restoration, planting of both canopy and understory native plants will be needed to establish long-lived overstory species and inhibit invasive species from reencroaching on the parks. Planting may also be extended to HMU A in the areas where canopy cover is sparse and open fields predominate. Bridle Crest Trail Site

• Located in the Overlake neighborhood, bordered on the western side by the Westside Neighborhood Park and on the eastern side by West Lake Road.

• 10.86 acres, all forested• 1 HMU:

a – tree-iage category 1: Canopy cover is dense and composed mainly of healthy native coniferous species: Douglas-fir, red cedar, western hemlock, and bigleaf maple. The red alders are approaching the end of their life spans and are beginning to die out. The understory is healthy, well established, and mainly composed of sword fern, Indian plum, salmonberry, and bleeding heart. Invasive blackberry and holly cover 15.6% of the understory.

Removal of the minimal invasive species present will help natives fully reseed and allow natural succession to take place. Red cedar should be planted in the areas where the overmature alders are dying out. This park is in very good condition and can serve as an area where volunteers can create a visible change in a comparatively small time period. The trail also provides good visibility to draw community members into the park.

A seasonal stream meanders through the northwest portion of the park, and the Bridle Crest Trail crosses the park from east to west, then continues into the adjoining Westside Neighborhood Park. Cascade View Neighborhood Park

• Located in the Overlake neighborhood north of NE 40th Street and on both sides of 164th Avenue NE.

• 8.04 acres; 4.76 forested


68

• 3 HMUs:a – tree-iage category 9: 4.04 acres in the larger eastern portion of the park, east of the playfields and landscaped area in the center. Steep 15% east-facing slopes lead down into a gulch.

b – tree-iage category 9: 0.38 acre also located in the western extreme of the park across 162nd Avenue NE. Relatively low canopy cover dominated by deciduous red alder and bigleaf maple. The native understory of mostly elderberry and salmonberry has been overtaken by a high presence of blackberry and large holly trees. This HMU has a 10% slope facing east.

C – tree-iage category 3: 0.34 acre in the small western portion of the park, on the west side of 162nd Avenue NE, has a healthy overstory dominated by Douglas-fir and bigleaf maple and an understory of mostly Indian plum with a high presence of blackberry. This HMU has a 5% slope facing north.

The park contains a mixture of play areas, sporting fields, picnic tables, and forested parkland.

Major invasive species removal will be needed in all three HMUs. Crews will be needed to remove the large holly trees and work on the steep slopes. Planting of native understory species will also be needed after the invasive removal and as infill planting under the existing coniferous canopy in HMU C. Conrad Olson Farm

• Located in the Bear Creek neighborhood, north of NE 95th Street across from Bear and Evans Creek Greenway.

• 8.40 acres; 4.70 forested acres• 1 HMU:

a – tree-iage category 7: This HMU has low canopy cover of mainly black cottonwood and spruce, an understory dominated by grass and willow, and a small amount of invasive blackberry. There is a 5% slope with a western aspect.

Restoration should focus on removal of the existing blackberry and planting of native conifer species, such as Douglas-fir, to establish a conifer canopy, and native understory species, such as ferns, to shade out and

prevent invasive species from returning.

Bear Creek runs through the park and feeds into a pond between the forested and landscaped areas before continuing into Bear and Evans Creek Greenway. East Valley Native Growth Protection Easement

• Located within an Education Hill neighborhood housing development along 104th Street and 183rd Avenue.

• 17.46 acres; all forested• 4 HMUs:

a – tree-iage category 5: 8.46 acres on the north side of 104th Street. Moderate canopy cover with bigleaf maple and red alder, and an understory of mainly vine maple and salmonberry. There is also a moderate level of invasive blackberry. This HMU has a 20% slope with an eastern aspect.

b – tree-iage category 5: 1.3 acres east of 183rd Avenue. Moderate canopy cover with red alder and bigleaf maple, and an understory of mainly salmonberry and Indian plum. There is also a moderate level of invasive blackberry. This HMU has a 10% slope with an eastern aspect.

C – tree-iage category 6: 5.29 acres between 183rd and 181st Avenue. A moderate canopy of bigleaf maple and red cedar, and an understory of sword fern and Indian plum. A high level of invasive blackberry and English ivy covers this HMU, and there is also yellow archangel present. This HMU has a 10% slope with an eastern aspect.

D – tree-iage category 1: 2.41 acres south of 104th Street. A high canopy cover of Douglas-fir and western hemlock, as well as an understory dominated by sword fern and Indian plum. There is a low presence of holly and blackberry. This HMU has a 10% slope with an eastern aspect.

These easements are interspersed between homes within a development, and this site represents a great opportunity to engage local residents in restoration. Invasive species removal will need to be done in all HMUs, taking special care with holly trees and


69

probably requiring a professional crew for some of the initial removal in HMU C. Planting of both native conifers — Douglas-fir and western hemlock — and native understory — ferns and Indian plum — should occur throughout HMUs as invasive species are cleared. Some restoration may be inappropriate for volunteers due to steep slopes, especially in HMU A, and professional crews may be required for the holly removal. Farrel-McWhirter Park

• Located just west of the Redmond city limits, off Redmond Road and connected to Juel Park through the Redmond/Puget Power Trail

• 67.68 acres; 54.08 forested acres • 5 HMUs:

a – tree-iage category 3: 0.62 acre in the northwestern corner of the park. There is a healthy canopy of Douglas-fir and bigleaf maple, and an understory with native salmonberry that has been dominated by invasive blackberry and holly.

b – tree-iage category 5: 6.86 acres in the northwest corner of the park, next to HMU A and encompassing the equestrian arena. The moderate canopy is dominated by cottonwood. The understory of willow and Indian plum has a moderate presence of invasive blackberry. This is a wet section of the park, and some restoration of the wetland plant community has been started there.

C – tree-iage category 1: 25.24 acres in the northeastern corner of the park, including many trails. There is a healthy conifer overstory of Douglas-fir and western hemlock; understory of mostly Indian plum, sword fern, and salmonberry; and a small presence of ivy. This HMU has a 5% slope facing west.

D – tree-iage category 5: 2.56 acres in the center of the park, along its western border south of HMU B. A moderate canopy is dominated by black cottonwood and Douglas-fir, with an understory of mostly willow and grass. There is a moderate amount of blackberry and holly here, and a 5% slope facing west.

E – tree-iage category 1: 18.8 acres in the southern section of the park. A healthy canopy is dominated by

Douglas-fir, and the understory is composed mainly of salmonberry and Indian plum with a low presence of invasive holly. This HMU has a 5% slope facing west.

Farrel-McWhirter Park hosts many recreational opportunities, including a horse arena with trailer parking, children’s animal farm, multiuse trails, orienteering course, tire swings, and nature trail. These resources draw many people to the park and account for its high visibility within the Redmond community.

The park is well-equipped to handle work parties and has a lot of invasive species that are well suited for removal by volunteers, especially in HMUs B and D. As areas are cleared of invasive species, planting of native species in HMUs B and D should occur to enhance both the native understory and coniferous overstory and inhibit invasive species from reestablishing. Infill planting should be done in HMU A after invasive removal for the same reasons. Once invasive species have been cleared from HMUs C and E, they can be enrolled into the maintenance and monitoring phase. Holly will need to be removed by crews to prevent suckering, and special care should be taken to ensure proper plantings within wetland areas. Grass Lawn Community Park

• Located in the Grass Lawn neighborhood, bordered on its southern perimeter by Old Redmond Road and its eastern perimeter by 148th Ave NE.


a – tree-iage category 5: 5.59 acres along the western border of the park. A well-maintained trail runs through the area, making it accessible to park visitors. Forest composition is dense in the southern portion of the forest, and overall tree condition is fair. The canopy composition is a mixture of native conifer and deciduous trees: bigleaf maple, red cedar, red alder, cherry and apple. The red alders in the canopy are approaching the end of their life cycle and beginning to die. An invasive species cover of 73%, mainly blackberry, is inhibiting native plant regeneration and overtaking the understory, including native salmonberry and Indian plum.


70

The rest of the park contains sports fields, constructed playgrounds, pavilions, and parking lots. The pavilions provide good meeting places on-site, and the parking area makes access easy. This park has undergone vast improvements in its nonforested areas and is a major attraction for local residents.

Some successful restoration has already taken place in the northern area of the park, where blackberry has been cleared and planting has been done. More blackberry and other invasive plants in this area should be removed, especially in the northern region of the park, to keep up the momentum of past restoration. As invasive species are removed, native trees, such as western red cedar and sitka spruce, should be planted to rebuild the canopy layer. Hartman Community Park

• Located in the Education Hill neighborhood • 39.56 acres; 16.30 forested acres• 3 HMUs:

a - tree-iage category 1:10.48 acres located in the central-eastern part of the park — the northern majority of the forested area. Densely forested with a canopy of primarily western red cedar and Douglas-fir, with some red alder, bigleaf maple, and western hemlock. Red cedar, cascara, and bigleaf maple in the understory, along with sword fern, salmonberry, creeping blackberry, and salal. Invasive cover is very small: 2.8% cover by blackberry, holly, and herb Robert.

b – tree-iage category 2: 2.41 acres along the central-western part of the park. Moderately to densely forested with a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees. The canopy is primarily Douglas-fir, Oregon ash, quaking aspen, and red cedar, and the understory includes cascara, quaking aspen, red cedar, and Oregon ash trees along with salal, sword fern, and creeping blackberry. Invasive species growth in this HMU is densest of anywhere in the park: 21% cover by blackberry and herb Robert.

C - tree-iage category 4: 3.41 acres bordering the southern perimeter of the park, which is periodically flooded. Moderately forested mainly with deciduous trees: red alder, quaking aspen, Oregon ash, and red cedar in the canopy; cascara, Oregon ash, quaking

aspen, red cedar and red alder in the understory. Other understory species include spirea, creeping blackberry, and salmonberry. Invasive blackberry, herb Robert, and buttercup cover 5% of the area.

The park’s forested area abuts athletic fields and parking areas. A seasonal stream runs parallel to the trail that follows the southern border of the park through HMU C.

Hartman is an ideal baseline park from which goal forest canopy cover can be gauged. Due to its location, there is also significant community interest here, which should be mobilized to remove the existing invasive species. Once that has been done, the park should be monitored and maintained to focus on the removal of any invasive species that regrow. This park represents a great opportunity for getting volunteers involved in a restoration project that can be completed quickly and serve as motivation for longer-term restoration efforts. Heron Rookery

• Located in downtown Redmond, north of Slough House Park, northwest of Town Center Open Space, and bordered on the south by Leary Way NE.

• 4.56 acres, all forested• 1 HMU:

a - tree-iage category 3: Overall forest composition ranges from fair to poor. The canopy is composed of Douglas-firs of low vigor and thin crowns interspersed with bigleaf maple. In the center of the forest, there is a large pocket of laminated root rot that has created an opening being consumed by blackberry. Heron Rookery is moderately to densely forested on the whole, but has no understory trees at all, which will pose a big threat to the park in the future. Indian plum, hazel, and creeping blackberry make up the understory, with 37% invasive species cover of herb Robert, blackberry, and ivy.

Native trees such as red cedar should be planted in the opening that has been caused by root rot. Before this can happen, the encroaching blackberry needs to be removed. Since the park is located downtown, activity would be highly visible and help attract new volunteers to participate in restoration. Its location also makes


71

this park an exciting opportunity to incorporate local businesses and their employees in the restoration effort. Access needs to be addressed, since the park is bordered by storefronts and a road without parking areas. Idylwood Beach Park

• Located in the Viewpoint neighborhood along the northwestern shore of Lake Sammamish along West Lake Sammamish Parkway


a - tree-iage category 7: 0.47 acre in the northeastern corner of the park, including the stream east of the pedestrian bridge. Moderately forested with black cottonwood and red alder in the canopy in fair condition. Small trees in the understory include bigleaf maple, mountain ash, red alder, and black cottonwood, along with grass and numerous successful plantings of young conifers. Invasive species coverage is low at 3% cover by blackberry and ivy. The entire HMU is enclosed by a wooden fence and extends to the northern beach area.

b - tree-iage category 1: 2.17 acres in the central area of the park between Sammamish Parkway and the pedestrian bridge, with landscaped areas on two sides. Moderately forested with healthy Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple, and mountain ash, although canopy density is low. There are many small trees and shrubs in the understory, mainly composed of mountain ash, Oregon ash, and bigleaf maple, with hazel, Indian plum, and others filling in densely. There is a 34% cover of invasive blackberry, ivy, and holly in the northern sections.

C - tree-iage category 3: 1.94 acres, east of West Lake Sammamish Parkway and extending to the water. This HMU is lightly forested, primarily with bigleaf maple and red alder, and willow, grasses, and Indian plum in the understory. There are large openings of invasive cover that have taken over many of the trees. Some of these areas have had recent efforts to remove the invasives, ivy and blackberry, that still maintain a 50% cover, and a thick mulch layer has been laid, which will greatly slow their return. Other areas are covered in blackberry and have very little forest cover. The western HMU contains open patches overrun with blackberry,

and have benefited from both mulching and/or invasive species removal.

D - tree-iage category 3: 2.3 acres, west of West Lake Sammamish Parkway surrounding the overflow parking areas. Moderately to lightly forested. The canopy is composed of Douglas-fir, western red cedar, and some hardwoods. The understory is composed of red cedar, vine maple, hazel, and salal. Native species are recovering due to the continued efforts to control the invasive species near the parking areas, mainly ivy and blackberry, which make up 37% cover over this HMU. Past and recent mulching has greatly slowed the return of removed invasives.

Crossed by Sammamish Parkway, Idylwood is a large park with well-kept landscaped areas that draw many people to the park for recreational use, including a sand volleyball court that is one of only two public courts of its kind in Redmond. The forested areas of the park are interspersed with parking lots and landscaped areas. A north-south stream, which has benefited greatly from previous City restoration efforts, bisects the park through HMUs A and D and is crossed by a pedestrian bridge.

The restoration plan includes invasive species removal and native planting with conifers for all four HMUs, but each requires emphasis on different aspects of the strategy. HMUs A and D need minimal invasive species removal to allow the existing canopy and understory to reseed, while HMUs B and C will need major invasive species removal. HMUs B, C, and D will all need planting of natives such as red cedar, grand fir, and Douglas-fir to build and diversify the canopy and understory. This park is very popular throughout the city and would be a good site to build the Partnership’s visibility.


72

Juel Community Park • Located just west of the Redmond city limits,

bordered to the north by 116th Street and to the south by Redmond/Puget Power Trail, connecting it to Farrel-McWhirter Park.


a – tree-iage category 9: 0.28 acres in the northwest section of the park along its western border. A sparse canopy is composed of black cottonwood and red cedar over an understory of salmonberry. Blackberry dominates this small HMU.

b – tree-iage category 9: 0.16 acres just south of HMU A across Bear Creek. A sparse canopy is composed of black cottonwood and red cedar over an understory of salmonberry. Blackberry dominates this small HMU.

C – tree-iage category 9: 0.16 acres just south of HMU B across Bear Creek. A sparse canopy is composed of black cottonwood and red cedar over an understory of salmonberry. Blackberry dominates this small HMU. Some restoration has been done here already.

D – tree-iage category 9: 8.31 acres in the northeast corner of the park. There is no canopy here, and the native understory of willow and grasses has been dominated by blackberry.

E – tree-iage category 1: 15.25 acres along the southern border of the park and extending northward between the landscaped area and HMU D. There is a high canopy cover of mostly Douglas-fir and red cedar, and an understory of Indian plum, salmonberry, and a small amount of holly.

Large open areas dominate much of the northern area of the park, with several older structures still in place from previous ownership. This property is open for interim, drop-in use until a master plan is implemented. Bear Creek runs just west of the park, and crosses briefly over the western border into HMUs A, B, and C.

This site is well suited for volunteer efforts with an

extensive trail system and good access. Invasive species removal should be focused on HMUs A, B, C, and D, with planting done once those areas have been cleared. Planting should focus on establishing an understory of native plants and filling in gaps in the canopy. HMU E can be enrolled into maintenance after the holly and any other small invasive species have been removed. Meadow Neighborhood Park

• Located in the Education Hill neighborhood, slightly to the east of 109th NE Street.


a – tree-iage category 2: 2.24 acres in the southeast half of the park. A high canopy cover is dominated by western hemlock and black cottonwood; there is native understory of grass and salmonberry. This HMU has a moderate coverage of blackberry and holly, and a 5% slope with a northern aspect.

The landscaped northwestern half of the park is a mixture of play structures, sport courts, picnic areas, and trails.

Restoration in this park represents a great opportunity for engaging the local community. This is also the most northwestern of all of the Green Redmond Partnership sites, and so may be a focal point for restoration by residents all over northwest Redmond. Initial restoration should focus on removal of the invasive species, with special care taken to prevent the suckering of holly. As areas are cleared, native understory plants should be established to inhibit regrowth of invasive species, and long-lived conifers should be planted to bolster canopy cover.


73

Nike Neighborhood Park • Located in the Education Hill neighborhood,

east of 171st Avenue NE and west of Avondale Road NE.


a – tree-iage category 1: This HMU encircles the landscaped area in the center of the park. There is a healthy overstory here dominated by Douglas-fir and red cedar. The native understory is dominated by sword fern and Indian plum, with a low presence of holly and blackberry.

The small landscaped area in the center of the park contains children’s play areas, sports fields and parklands. There is easy parking on NE 92nd Street. at the entrance to the park.

With a healthy canopy, the main focus of restoration at this park is removing invasive species. Much of this work can be accomplished by engaging the local community and residents in work parties. Crews may be needed to remove the holly. Northeast Redmond Neighborhood Park

• Located in the North Redmond neighborhood, north of 124th Street NE.


a – tree-iage category 4: This HMU comprises the entire park, excluding the open water along the eastern border. It has a moderate canopy cover dominated by red alder and bigleaf maple. The understory consists of native vine maple and salmonberry, with a low presence of blackberry and Scot’s broom.

Restoration of this park should start with removal of the invasive blackberry and Scot’s broom. Once areas are cleared, planting of both native understory plants and native coniferous trees should follow to shade out invasive species and build up the gaps in the current canopy. This is the only Green Redmond Partnership site in the North Redmond neighborhood, and it could be instrumental in engaging that community.

Perrigo Community Park • Located in the Bear Creek neighborhood,

south of 95th Street. and west of 195th Avenue NE, and bordered by Bear and Evans Creek Greenway to the west.


a – tree-iage category 4: 5.64 acres in the southwestern corner of the park, adjoining Bear and Evans Creek Greenway. The Evans Creek Trail runs through the eastern edge of this HMU and into Bear and Evans Creek Greenway to the south. The moderate canopy is dominated by black cottonwood and red alder, and the understory is mostly willow and salmonberry. There is a low presence of invasive blackberry.

b – tree-age category 8: 3.45 acres along the southern border of the park, south of the sporting field area. There is a sparse canopy of red cedar and spruce, and a native understory of grass and willow. Invasive blackberry and holly have a moderate presence in this HMU.

In addition to the forested area, the park contains a mixture of sports fields, courts, picnic areas, and playgrounds.

Some restoration has already taken place along the trail in HMU A. Invasive species removal will need to take place in both HMUs, especially HMU B. Special attentions should be given to removal of invasives and monitoring for reestablishment along the southern border of HMU A because it abuts a portion of Bear and Evans Creek Greenway in Tree-iage category 9 with high invasive cover. Once areas have been cleared of invasive species, native plantings should be established. Understory plants are needed in both HMUs to prevent reestablishment of invasive species, especially in HMU B, and to establish a coniferous canopy. Planting in HMU A will be filling in gaps and creating canopy to replace aged deciduous trees. This park is great for volunteer work parties due to the ease of access from the Evans Creek trail and the road, and regular use from sports infrastructure.


74

Redmond West Wetlands• Located in the Overlake neighborhood, slightly

west of State Highway 520 and south of NE 60th Street

• 4.06 acres, all forested• 2 HMUs:

a – tree-iage category 1: 2.69 acres in the eastern section of the park. An upland ecosystem comprised of a mixture of native coniferous and deciduous trees in the canopy: Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple, and red cedar. The understory is made up of small trees, including red cedar, bigleaf maple, mountain ash, and red alder, as well as thriving sword fern, hazel, Oregon grape, sedge, creeping blackberry, and Indian plum. Tree condition is generally good to fair, but conifers that border the small wetland contained within this unit are in decline, likely due to a rising water table. This HMU has 9% invasive cover, mostly blackberry, concentrated along the park’s border.

b – tree-iage category 7: 1.37 acres in the western lowland section of the park, sparsely forested with red alder and willow in the canopy, and a denser understory of small trees, mostly willow and Indian plum. The understory also has a good coverage of woody shrubs, ferns, and a variety of other native plants. Invasive species make up 16% cover, mostly by blackberry and buttercup.

One small water body is located between the two HMUs and another in the central area of HMU B. The Bridle Crest Trail borders the northern perimeter, and a gravel trail encircles the majority of the park.

The majority of the invasive species removal in HMU A can be carried out by volunteers. Planting additional water-tolerant plants around the wetland will eliminate loss of canopy cover where the evergreens are dying. Red cedars should be planted in HMU B to fill in the canopy after the short-lived hardwoods have died out.

Viewpoint Neighborhood Park• Located in the Viewpoint neighborhood,

slightly northeast of Viewpoint Open Space• 4.76 acres; 3.64 forested acres• 1 HMU:

a – tree-iage category 6: Moderately forested with bigleaf maple, red alder, and red cedar, concentrated in the southern and northern regions. An open middle section contains many dense patches of blackberry. The understory includes small red alder and red cedar trees, as well as some hazel, salal, and other native shrubs and ground cover. Invasive species create a 41% cover, mostly blackberry with some ivy and minimal herb Robert, buttercup, and clematis. The majority of the invasive damage is located in the central areas of the park. Numerous trails exist, and the northern portion of the park is heavily used. Heavy foot traffic has inhibited growth of native ground vegetation. A small stream runs north to south through the western portion of the park.

The blackberry that dominates the park’s central areas needs to be removed, preferably before it spreads to the entire park. Native plants, including red cedar and other coniferous trees, should be planted after the invasives are removed to inhibit their reestablishment and facilitate the growth of a healthy native understory. Viewpoint Open Space

• Located in the Viewpoint neighborhood, slightly southwest of Viewpoint Neighborhood Park and bordered on the north by 24th Street.


a – tree-iage category 3: Lightly forested with scattered open areas dominated by invasive species. Douglas-fir is dominant in the canopy, with bigleaf maple, red alder, and red cedar also present. Understory trees are mainly bigleaf maple and red cedar, with some cherry and red alder. Other understory vegetation, mostly hazel and sword fern, is sparse, and invasive blackberry covers 71% of the area.

The Viewpoint Trail runs north-south through the center of the park and is primarily used by foot and occasional bike traffic. There is an east-west stream


75

through the middle of the park running perpendicular to the trail. It is well protected from trail erosion by a well-built bridge and trail maintenance.

Invasive blackberry that has overrun the open areas needs to be removed. Once cleared, these areas should be filled in with native plants such as Douglas-fir, red cedar, and native understory shrubs and ground cover to promote the growth of a native canopy layer and shade out returning invasive plants. Watershed Preserve

• Located northeast of Redmond proper, north of NE Novelty Hill Road and south of NE 133rd Street.


a – tree-iage category 1: 287.03 acres in the northwestern section of the park, to the west of the Regional Pipeline and north of the Redmond/Puget Power Trail. This HMU has a large section of open water and several trails, including the Old Pond Trail and the Trillium Trail. The healthy canopy is dominated by Douglas-fir and western hemlock, and the understory is dominated by sword fern and salmonberry. There were no invasive species found here. A 10% slope faces west.

b – tree-iage category 7: 18.4 acres along the Regional Pipeline and the Redmond/Puget Power Trail, forming a narrow cross through the park between HMUs A, C, D, and E. There is no canopy along these corridors, which are covered in grass and a small amount of blackberry.

C – tree-iage category 1: 410.11 acres in the northeastern section of the park, to the east of the Regional Pipeline and north of the Redmond/Puget Power Trail. The healthy canopy is dominated by Douglas-fir and western hemlock, and the understory is dominated by sword fern and salal. There was no invasive species presence found here. A 10% slope faces west.

D – tree-iage category 1: 60.11 acres in the southwestern corner of the park. The Trout Loop Trail and tributaries to Bear Creek wind through this HMU,

which includes two sections of open water and wraps around a small landscaped area. The healthy canopy is dominated by Douglas-fir and western hemlock, and the understory is dominated by sword fern and salmonberry. There was no invasive species presence found here. A 10% slope faces west.

E – tree-iage category 1: 4.88 acres in the southeastern corner of the park. The healthy canopy is dominated by Douglas-fir and western hemlock, and the understory is dominated by sword fern and salal. There is a low presence of blackberry and holly. A 10% slope faces west.

F – tree-iage category 1: 1.33 acres along the southern border of the park. The healthy canopy is dominated by Douglas-fir and western hemlock, and the understory is dominated by sword fern and salal. No invasive species were found in this HMU. A 10% slope faces north.

Watershed Preserve is an expanse of dense, healthy native forest and includes an extensive system of multiuse trails and visitor amenities.

The majority of the Preserve can be enrolled directly into the monitoring and maintenance phase. The area in HMU B should be restored by removing invasive species, and planting both native understory and canopy species in order to establish native vegetation and inhibit invasive species from reestablishing. This should be the most important focus of restoration in this park, to prevent invasives from spreading through the corridors of HMU B into the healthy forest in the rest of the park. Some invasive removal will also be needed in HMU E, with special care taken to prevent the holly from suckering.


76

Westside Neighborhood Park• Located in the Overlake neighborhood, east

of State Highway 520, bordered on the west by 156th Avenue NE and adjoining the Bridle Crest Trail Site to the east

• 6.38 acres; 3.69 forested acres • 2 HMUs:

a – tree-iage category 1: 2.62 acres in the eastern section of the park adjoining the Bridle Crest Trail Site. Moderately to densely forested mainly with Douglas-fir, red alder, and red cedar, and lesser amounts of western hemlock and bigleaf maple. Tree condition is generally good. Small red alder and red cedar trees inhabit a sparse native understory, along with creeping blackberry, hazel, and others. A 57% invasive cover is made up almost entirely of blackberry, Scots broom, and English ivy.

b – tree-iage category 6: 1.07 acres along the park’s southern border. Low tree cover of mainly red alder and minor components of Douglas-fir and red cedar. The native understory has been completely overrun by blackberry, which covers 88% of the area, and a smaller presence of English ivy and snow-on-the-mountain.

A trail runs east-west through the park into the Bridle Crest Trail Site and is crossed by a small stream traveling though the park in the same direction.

Some restoration has already taken place along the stream located in HMU A. More invasive removal will be needed there and also in HMU B. Native planting is important because of the high-value forest in this park. Areas cleared of invasive species should be planted with understory and coniferous plants to shade out and discourage invasives from returning.

Willows Creek Neighborhood Park • Located in the Willows/Rose Hill

neighborhood, west of Willows Road and north of Redmond Way


a – tree-iage category 1: 1.11 acres in the northwest corner of the park, with a small creek running through. A high canopy cover is dominated by western hemlock and red cedar, and an understory of willow and grass. No invasive species were found in this HMU.

b – tree-iage category 5: 1.90 acres spanning the central length of the park. There is a moderate canopy cover of Douglas-fir and bigleaf maple, and an understory of sword fern and Indian plum. A moderate invasive cover is mostly blackberry and Scot’s broom. This HMU has a 25% slope with a northern aspect.

The landscaped section of the park comprises a children’s play area and sports court.

HMU A can be enrolled directly into the monitoring and maintenance phase. HMU B will need invasive species removal targeting the blackberry and Scot’s broom present there. Once that has been done, planting of native understory and canopy species will be needed to establish a healthy understory, fill in the canopy gaps in the current overstory, and create a forest stock to succeed the older deciduous maples in the park.


77

Appendix D: Public InputThe following is a summary of the activities and discussions from two public meetings and one high school meeting that took place in the fall of 2008. We gathered information about people’s favorite parks and those that were closest to where they live and work, as well as the reason they enjoy these parks or the problems they see facing them. We also asked them to think about the goals and visions they have for the future of Redmond’s park system. We inquired as to how they came to attend these meetings and how best we could reach out to more people. And, finally, we asked about their interest in volunteering for and/or financially supporting Green Redmond Partnership events. Local Geography To get a feel for which parks are most visible and/or important to the attendees, we asked them to place different colored stickers on a map of Redmond corresponding to the where they live (blue), work (yellow), and like to visit (red).

The top 7 parks that people most often visit were Farrel-McWhirter (14), Hartman (14), Grass Lawn (14), Watershed (11), Perrigo (7), Marymoor [outside of project area] (5), and Westside(4) parks. The top 5 parks closest to where people live were Reservoir (6), Meadow (3), Hartman (3), East Valley NGPE (3), and Cascade View (3) parks. The top 3 parks closest to where people work were Bear Creek (5), Heron Rookery (4), and Hartman (2) parks.

We analyzed this information and identified the top 5 neighborhoods corresponding to the parks people live near; these were Education Hill (12), Overlake (3), North Redmond (2), Grass Lawn (2), and Viewpoint (2) neighborhoods. The top 4 neighborhoods corresponding to the parks people visit most often were downtown (4), Southeast Redmond (4), Education Hill (2), and Overlake (2) neighborhoods. Priority Parks Attendees were asked to rate the top 3 parks where they felt the most restoration effort should be directed and why they felt certain parks may deserve special

attention. The results are compiled in the table below.

Attendees were also asked to choose which priority parks they would address first. They decided that Idylwood, Hartman, and Heron Rookery should be the first parks to be addressed for restoration work. Advertising/Outreach The groups were asked to share how they learned about these meetings and to make suggestions for how the Green Redmond Partnership could best conduct volunteer recruitment and community outreach. Following is a list of ideas people had about how best to conduct outreach to the Redmond general public about Green Redmond Partnership events and volunteer opportunities:

General outreachDirect contact with organizations Kids’ involvement Posters on neighborhood telephone poles Media/publications: Redmond Recreation Guide Redmond cable TV (RCTV) University arboretum mailing Focus on Redmond Local paper Newsletters Internet Recreation e-mail list Parks’ online volunteer page Publications/posters Work Word-of-mouth Snail mail Phone calls

The best locations and businessesCadman/PCC/Whole Foods/Starbucks Churches Libraries Redmond Historical Society Kiwanis Senior center Sports leagues Leadership institute Boy Scouts


78

public rAnking oF priority pArks

ParkTally of rankings

Value#1 #2 #3

Idylwood 9 2 - High use, small (therefore, a good place to start and results will be visible)

Town Center [outside of project area] 8 3 1 High use, nature/wildlife/riparian area, high visibility, underappreciated (green space – wildlife/river)

Watershed Preserve 4 2 2 Unique property

Farrel-McWhirter 4 2 2 High use, trails/recreation

Hartman 3 2 3Nature/wildlife/riparian area, trails/recreation, underappreciated (natural woodland near high school)

Westside 3 3 -

Bear and Evans Creek 2 1 -

Heron Rookery 2 - 1 Nature/wildlife/riparian area, underappreciated (wildlife habitat)

Perrigo 1 - 1

Arthur Johnson 1 1 1

Bear Creek 1 - -

Grass Lawn 1 4 -

Redmond/Puget Power Trail 1 - -

Juel - 5 1

Viewpoint Open Space - 2 1

Nike - 1 -

Viewpoint Neighborhood - 1 1

Meadow - - 3

East Lake Sammamish Waterfront - - 2

Cascade View - - 1

East Redmond corridor/Barrett Property Unique property


79

Corporate outreachMicrosoft – team projects REI, Eddie Bauer – corporate ties Genie Industries Corporate newsletters

High school–specificThe high school students also provided recommendations for how best to conduct outreach in high schools: Filling community service requirements Creating trips and retreats Flyers Creating Facebook groups and events Video announcements Host presentations/events during lunchtime or other convenient times

Successful Volunteer Events Attendees were asked what aspects of a work party make them want to return. They said that it is essential that the event is organized, fun, and close to their home or work. Also, being able to see the results of your work, having an understanding of where the event fits into the big picture, and a feeling of community building are important. They recommended signage at parks where a community (friends-of group) has adopted a park. The groups were also asked to voice any other concerns they may have concerning work parties. Concerns included crowding at work parties, the availability of parking, and whether volunteers are efficient enough to be worth the effort of events. Funding Priorities Attendees were asked to choose how they would distribute financial resources to three program areas: education, maintenance, and volunteer participation. The majority of the group felt that education is key to a successful program since a more-knowledgeable community was more apt to volunteer, meaning less financial resources spent by the City. Additionally, they felt that site maintenance was important to avoid backsliding in progress. Questionnaire Summary At the two public meetings all attendees were given a questionnaire asking them about the best days for

volunteer events and whether they would be willing or able to support the Green Redmond Partnership financially.

The following is the distribution of days and times that participants selected as best for Green Redmond Partnership events, such as work parties:

Day of Week Morning Day Evening

Monday 2 2 -Tuesday 2 2 -Wednesday 2 2 -Thursday 2 2 1Friday 2 2 -Saturday 10 12 2Sunday 9 10 2

Although it is a small sample, the following table shows that there may be opportunities to tap community members’ willingness to contribute financially to the Green Redmond Partnership.

Yes No Perhaps7 2 2

20-Year Vision Everyone was asked to imagine the current park system and think of the positive things they wanted in the next 20 years and also what concerns they had about the future of Redmond’s parks. The goals people expressed included more focus on nature, safe areas, keeping some areas preserved and completely natural, creating more respect for the forest, and keeping recreation areas. At Hartman in particular, some wanted to see the natural area preserved, the litter cleaned up, and trails maintained.

The concerns people expressed included increased parking lots, the development near Hartman Park, and forested areas no longer being places where children feel safe.

www.greenredmond.org

april 2009 20 year forest anagement plan · sustain a vibrant urban life. in 2005, the cascade land...

Documents