HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2009-11-23 Item 4I.1 - Shoreline Master Program - Attachment A: Restoration Plan0
CO
C
0
ca
1
0)
CD 0)
C
CD
0
332
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 114
1.1 Regulatory Background 11.1 1
1.2 Defining Restoration 31.2 I
2.0 Restoration Planning 424
2.1 Restoration Framework 42.1 1
2.2 Assessment of Functions 62.2 1
2.2.1 Watershed Context and Shoreline Modifications 62.2.1 1
2.2.2 Habitat and Species 6
2.23 Land Use 7 1 1
2.2.4 Altered Ecosystem Processes 72.2.1 1
2.3 Existing Plans and Programs 9
2.3.1 Regional 92.3.1 1
2.3.2 City 102.2.2
2.4 Completed Projects 103.1 1
3.0 Restoration Opportunities 1434
3.1 Potential Projects and Restoration Priorities 113.1 1
4.0 Policy Development 2144
5.0 Implementation 2354
5.1 Funding and Partnership Opportunities 235.1 1
5.1.1 Puget Sound Action Team 235.1.1 1
5.1.2 Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) 245.1.2 1
5.1.3 King Conservation District 245.1.3 1
5.1.4 Natural Resource Damage Assessment Funds 245.1.'1 1
5.1.5 King County Flood Control District 245.1.5 1
5.2 Timelines and Benchmarks 255.2 1
5.3 Mechanisms and Strategies for Effectiveness 25`•3
6.0 Conclusions 2664
7.0 References 2874
8.0 Attachments 308-4
List of Tables
Table 1. Restoration Planning Structure 4
Table 2. General Restoration Potential within the Shorelines of Tukwila. 8
Table 3. Completed Restoration Proiects in Tukwila 12
Table 4. Potential Restoration Projects and Initial Proiect Ranking 16
1.2 1
2.2.1 1
r
Table 3. Completed Restoration Projects- in Tukwila.
Table 1. Potential Restoration Projects and Initial Project Ranking
May 2007
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
333
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
List of Figures
Figure 1. Mitigation Versus Restoration in Shoreline Master Programs (Source: Department of
Ecology) 21.1 1
Figure 2. Schematic View of Overall Restoration Framework (based on Palmer et al. 2005) 52,1
4
334 May 2007 ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Regulatory Background
May 2007
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
The Green/Duwamish River is a central feature in the City of Tukwila. The Green/Duwamish
River has long been an important nexus between upland freshwater and marine saltwater
environments, as well as a focus area for historical land use and urban development. The
Shoreline Management Act (SMA or the Act) (RCW 90.58) is charged with balancing how
shorelines should be developed, protected, and restored. The Act has three broad policies or
mandates; it strives to: 1) encourage water dependent uses, 2) protect and restore shoreline
natural resources, and 3) promote public access. Restoration planning is an important
component of the environmental protection policy of the Act.
This report supports the development of a restoration element to the City of Tukwila's Shoreline
Master Program (SMP), originally adopted in 1974. The SMP is being updated to comply with
the SMA requirements (RCW 90.58), and the state's SMP guidelines (Washington
Administrative Code [WAC] 173 -26, Part III), which went into effect in 2003.
The SMP guidelines require that local governments develop SMP policies that promote
"restoration" of impaired shoreline ecological functions and a "real and meaningful" strategy to
implement restoration objectives. The City's shoreline inventory and characterization report
(ESA Adolfson, 2006) identifies which shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem processes
have been impaired. Local governments are further encouraged to contribute to restoration by
planning for and supporting restoration through the SMP and other regulatory and non regulatory
programs.
This report provides a framework to:
1. Identify primary goals for ecological restoration of the Green/Duwamish ecosystem;
2. Identify how restoration of ecological function can be accomplished;
3. Suggest how the SMP update process may accomplish the restoration of impaired
shoreline functions associated with the Green/Duwamish ecosystem; and
4. Prioritize restoration projects so that the highest value restoration actions may be
accomplished first.
The state has directed local governments to develop SMP provisions "...to achieve overall
improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time when compared to the status upon
adoption of the master program." This overarching goal is accomplished primarily through two
distinct objectives:
1. Protection of existing shoreline functions through regulations and mitigation
requirements to ensure "no net loss" of ecological functions from baseline environmental
conditions; and
2. Restoration of shoreline ecological functions that have been impaired from past
development practices or alterations.
335
This distinction is illustrated in Figure 1. below.
336 May 2007
A
er
CURRENT CONDITION
(BASELINE)
"No Net Loss"
achieved by
shoreline regulations
that require
avoidance and
mitigation of
impacts
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
Two Distinct Objectives:
No -Net Loss of Shoreline Ecological Functions
and Restoration Over Time
"Restoration"
achieved by
improving functions
over time
Where new development
introduces new impacts,
mitigation is required.
Figure 1. Mitigation Versus Restoration in Shoreline Master Programs (Source:
Department of Ecology)
The concept of no net loss of shoreline ecological function is embedded in the Act and in the
goals, policies and governing principles of shoreline guidelines and other federal and state
environmental protections (e.g., the Clean Water Act). Washington's general policy goals for
shorelines of the state include the "protection and restoration of ecological functions of shoreline
natural resources." This goal derives from the Act, which states, "permitted uses in the shoreline
shall be designed and conducted in a manner that minimizes insofar as practical, any resultant
damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area." Furthermore, the governing
principles of the guidelines clarify that protection of shoreline ecological functions is
accomplished through the following (WAC 173 -26 -186):
Meaningful understanding of the current shoreline ecological conditions,
Regulations and mitigation standards that ensure that permitted developments do not
cause a net loss of ecological functions,
Regulations that ensure exempt developments in the aggregate do not result in net loss of
ecological functions,
Goals and policies for restoring ecologically impaired shorelines,
2
Regulations and programs that fairly allocate the burden of mitigating cumulative
impacts among development opportunities, and
Incentives or voluntary measures designed to restore and protect ecological functions.
It is important to note that the restoration planning component of the SMP is focused on
voluntary mechanisms (actions over and above any mitigation required for shoreline impacts due
to development), not regulatory provisions (required mitigation or re- vegetation). Restoration
planning is focused on economic incentives, available funding sources (including City general
funds in the Capital Improvement Program and grant funding). volunteer programs, and other
programs that can contribute to restoration of shoreline functionsa no net loss strategy.
However, the restoration proiects framework developed for this compensatory
restoration plan can also be achieved applied othrough compensatory
mitigation projects (i.e. carrying out mitigation at identified restoration sites in lieu of on -site
mitigation). In this way, all efforts to improve ecosystem functioning can be ae coordinated,
and will be designed to work together.
1.2 Defining Restoration
There are numerous definitions for "restoration" in scientific and regulatory publications.
Specific elements of these definitions often differ, but the core element of repairing damage to an
existing, degraded ecosystem remains consistent. In the SMP context, the WAC defines
"restoration" or "ecological restoration" as:
"...the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or
functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to,
revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic
materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to
aboriginal or pre European settlement conditions" (WAC 173 -26- 020(27)).
Using the WAC definition of restoration in regards to state shorelines, it is clear the effort should
be focused on specific shoreline areas where natural ecological functions have been impaired or
degraded. The emphasis in the WAC is to achieve overall improvement in existing shoreline
processes or functions, where functions are impaired. Therefore, the goal is not to restore the
shoreline to historically natural conditions, but rather to improve on existing, degraded
conditions. In this context, restoration can be broadly implemented through a combination of
programmatic measures (such as surface water management; water quality improvement; public
education) and site specific projects (such as setback levees or riparian plantings).
May 2007
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
337
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
Table 1 below summarizes the key elements included in restoration planning within the context
of an SMP update under the state's current guidelines (WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(f)). These key
elements provide the organization and content for this report.
Table 11. Restoration Planning Structure
ey'elements for. the sihoreliine restoration ;planning
ocess.WAC 173 26.201(2)(
Identify degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and sites
with potential for ecological restoration.
Establish overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded
areas and impaired ecological functions.
Identify existing and ongoing projects and programs that are
currently being implemented which are designed to contribute to
local restoration goals (such as capital improvement programs
(CIPs) and watershed planning efforts (WRIA habitat/recovery
plans).
Identify timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration
projects and programs and achieving local restoration goals.
Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration
projects and programs will be implemented according to plans and
to appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and
programs in meeting the overall restoration goals (e.g., monitoring
of restoration project sites).
Identify additional projects and programs needed to achieve local
restoration goals, and implementation strategies including
identifying prospective funding sources for those projects and
programs.
2.0 RESTORATION PLANNING
2.1 Restoration Framework
Assessment of Functions (Section 2.2);
Restoration Opportunities (Section 3)
Restoration Priorities (Section 3.2);
Policy Development (Section 4)
Existing Plans and Programs (Section 2.3);
Potential Projects (Section 3.1)
Implementation (Section 5)
Implementation (Section 5)
Restoration Opportunities (Section 3);
Funding and Partnership Opportunities
(Section 5.1)
The guidelines for the SMP process direct that local shoreline master programs shall include
"goals, policies and actions for restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions." Under
the guidelines, restoration planning has a purpose distinct from development regulations and
mitigation standards. "The guidelines expressly focus restoration requirements on the use of
master program policies, as opposed to development regulations" (Ecology, 2004). Therefore, to
develop specific restoration goals and policies for Tukwila's SMP, an overall restoration
framework was considered to maintain consistency with an approach to restoration currently
recommended at the national level. This restoration framework includes elements that go beyond
the traditional no net loss philosophy to target a long -term improvement in a broad base of
ecosystem functions where feasible in the City of Tukwila.
Significant national attention has been applied recently to the development of an approach to
restoring riverine ecosystems that will more consistently result in long -term improvement in
338 May 2007 4
ecosystem functioning (Brinson, 1993, Kondolf, 1995, Palmer et al, 2005, Bernhardt et al, 2005).
The National River Restoration Science Synthesis project recently focused efforts on developing
both: 1) a database of existing and proposed river restoration projects; and 2) criteria to
consistently determine if a restoration is successful (Palmer and Allan, 2006). This work is
intended to provide a consistent restoration approach across jurisdictions and to improve the
probability of future success by learning from existing river restoration projects.
These national efforts have resulted in recent publications of a recommended approach to river
restoration. This approach is synthesized in Figure 1, below, modified for use within this
restoration framework. The approach has three phases: (1) Decision, (2) Design and
Implementation, and (3) Monitoring and Assessment. This framework is offered here to provide
the following:
Background and insight into how current approaches to ecosystem restoration have been
developed;
A way to consider how to integrate new information as it comes available; and
A basis for integrating the City's efforts into regional efforts.
P HASE
Preserve existing locations that perform ecosystem
functions at medium or high levels.
Monitor baseline conditions.
Coordinate with watershed and regional efforts to
ensure consistency throughout the basin.
P HASE 2
Develop a guiding image for restoration based on regional
reference, appropriately modified by existing conditions.
Target a broad base of ecosystem functions.
Target self sustaining ecosystems.
Do no lasting harm.
P HASE 3
Monitor post restoration conditions.
Adaptively manage restorations.
Use monitoring and maintenance results to
inform future restoration activities.
Summary of Phases of Restoration Objectives
Based on Palmer et al 2005
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
DECISION
DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION
MONITORING
AND ASSESSMENT
Figure 2. Schematic View of Overall Restoration Framework (based on Palmer et al. 2005)
May 2007 5
339
2.2 Assessment of Functions
2.2.1 Watershed Context and Shoreline Modifications
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
Shoreline restoration planning begins with the identification of "degraded areas" or areas with
"impaired ecological functions." The assessment of existing degraded areas and/or functions
relies heavily on the City of Tukwila Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
(ESA Adolfson, 2006). The City's inventory and characterization examined riverine and
estuarine ecosystem processes that maintain shoreline ecological functions; and identified
impaired ecological functions. Key fmdings of the inventory and characterization are
summarized below.
The City of Tukwila is situated in the Puget Sound Lowlands at the transition from the fresh
water Green River to the tidally influenced Duwamish estuary ecosystem. Tukwila includes
approximately 12.5 miles of the Green/Duwamish River. The Green River basin is part of the
Green/Duwamish Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 9).
Historically, the Green/Duwamish River drained a significantly larger area than it does today.
River course changes and major engineering projects in the early part of the 20 century resulted
in both the White and Cedar Rivers being diverted to neighboring basins. As a result, the overall
freshwater discharge in the Green/Duwamish River has been reduced to around a third of the
pre diversion era. The Green/Duwamish has undergone extensive modifications as part of past
river management with the intent of reducing channel migration and limiting the extent and
duration of valley flooding.
Levees and/or revetments have been constructed along the majority of the Green/Duwamish
River through the City of Tukwila to increase bank strength and reduce flooding. In addition,
flows within the Green/Duwamish River have been significantly modified by the construction of
the Howard A. Hansen Dam and installation of water diversions. These modifications have
significantly reduced the severity of floods that historically covered much of the valley bottom.
The condition of the current system of levees and revetments is a growing source of concern for
King County and the cities involved, as many of the levees are aging and would not meet current
standards for either flood conveyance or stability.
2.2.2 Habitat and Species
The Green/Duwamish River within the City of Tukwila provides important habitat for several
fish and some wildlife species, such as osprey. The aquatic environment within the channel is an
important corridor located at the transition from the freshwater riverine environment to tidal
estuarine environment of Elliot Bay. Almost every species of anadromous fish migrates through
this transition zone. The entire length of the Green/Duwamish River within the City of Tukwila
has been declared "critical habitat" for the Chinook salmon and bull trout. Both species are
listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
340 May 2007
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
The transition zone between fresh and salt water has effectively been pushed upstream from its
historic location due to: (1) a significant reduction (70 of fresh water flowing into the
Duwamish estuary (owing to the diversion of the White and Cedar/Black Rivers), (2) channel
dredging, and (3) reduction of flows as a result of the Howard A Hanson dam. The
establishment of heavy industrial uses in the transition zone has replaced wetlands with
impervious surfaces, and the stream banks have been replaced by levees and other armoring,
eliminating slow- moving flows through edge habitat and creating unrestrained downstream
flows. Spatial structure, residence time, and the habitat available for refugia and rearing
functions in the Duwamish estuary have therefore been reduced and constrained. High densities
of fish have been observed utilizing what is left of this specific habitat (the transition zone). At
the watershed scale, overall increases in salmonid survival rates are dependent on the availability
of sufficient transition zone habitat to accommodate fish while they adjust from fresh to salt
water (WRIA 9 Steering Committee, 2005).
Modifications to the river system have resulted in reduced levels of ecosystem functioning,
including hydrology, water quality, riparian habitat, and in- stream habitat. Changes to hydrology
focus on modified flow regime due to dam construction, diversion, and urban development.
River management and levees have reduced the connection between the rivers and their
floodplains, changing the spatial extent of habitats, and increasing the potential for negative
water quality impacts. Disturbances to the channel banks have resulted in areas that are
dominated by non native invasive species. Wood, in the form of riparian trees and in- channel
wood, is generally lacking through the system, which negatively impacts riparian and aquatic
habitats.
2.2.3 Land Use
The majority of the upper Green/Duwamish watershed, outside of the city limits, is in managed
forestland, parkland, or designated wilderness areas. Agricultural land covers much of the higher
river within the Green River gorge. The Kent -Auburn Valley is a transitional area between the
forest and agricultural activities upstream to the highly developed residential, industrial and
commercial development in the cities of Kent, Tukwila, and Seattle downstream in the Lower
Green Duwamish River Valley.
Within the valley, industrial, commercial, and residential land uses dominate the former Green
River floodplain in the vicinity of Tukwila. South of the city, commercial and
warehouse /industrial land uses dominate on the right bank in the City of Kent, with agricultural
fields on the left bank within the Tukwila South annexation area. Commercial development is
prevalent between the southern city boundary and I -405. Residential development dominates
between I -405 and the I -5 Bridge. North of the I -5 Bridge to the turning basin, residential uses
give way to commercial uses. The upper turning basin, located at river mile 5.8, is the southern
boundary of the predominantly industrial area that extends to the northern city limit.
2.2.4 Altered Ecosystem Processes
Key findings regarding current levels of ecosystem functioning within the lower
Green/Duwamish ecosystem are reported in Chapter 5 of the City of Tukwila Draft Shoreline
May 2007 7
341
342 May 2007
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
Inventory and Characterization Report (ESA Adolfson, 2006). The inventory report identified
key ecosystem processes, and provided a qualitative assessment of their levels of functioning at
both a watershed and city reach scale. Key ecosystem functions identified in the Inventory, their
level of alteration, and potential restoration actions are summarized below.
Table 22. General Restoration Potential within the Shorelines of Tukwila.
Function
Catego
Channel
Hydrologic Floodplain
Interaction
Hydrologic
Water
Quality
Upland sediment
Retention of
particulates and
contaminants
iterations'to natura
functonin
Presence of flood protection
structures (e.g., levees, river bank
revetments, flood gates) and
significant fill and development
along the shoreline limit channel
floodplain interactions in Tukwila.
Fine sediment contribution to the
river is increased due to build -up
generation and wash -off from surrounding
urban land uses.
Levees and revetments are virtually
continuous along the riverbanks,
limiting the potential to retain
particulates in the fluvially
dominated reaches. Particulates
and contaminants_ including
sediment, are retained in the tidally
dominated reaches, as evidenced by
the need to dredge the estuary
turning basin.
Potential Restoration
within 'the, CI
1. Modify current levees and revetments
to increase channel and floodplain
interaction;
2. Excavate back or side channels;
1. Implement enhanced stormwater
BMPs for fine sediment removal in
stormwater runoff.
1. Modify current levees and revetments
to increase channel and floodplain area;
2. Install native riparian species to
increase bank roughness.
Function
Category
Water
Quality
LWD and
Organics
LWD and
Organics:
Fu nction
Maintain
Characteristic
Plant Community
Source of LWD
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
Alterations to natural
functioning
As channel floodplain interaction
was reduced, the channel became a
Nutrient Cycling conduit for nutrients, offering little
opportunity for contact time with
soils.
The majority of the shoreline within
the City of Tukwila is currently
dominated by non native invasive
weed species (Himalayan
blackberry, reed canary grass, and
Japanese knotweed). Some higher
quality areas of cottonwood, alder,
and willow exist in riparian areas
bordering open space, parkland,
and residential zones.
for LWD, tThere are some large
cottonwoods and big leaf maples
that occur along the Ievees (many
of which are being removed to meet
Corps of Engineers standards for
levee maintenance). Other areas
and of the shoreline also have large
trees that provide a limited source
of LWD. revetment system.
2.3 Existing Plans and Programs
Potential Restoration Action
within the City
1. Increase riverine wetland area;
2. Install native riparian plant species.
3. Set back banks (revetments and
levees).
1. Remove invasive plants and install
native riparian species;
2. Incorporate LWD into bank
stabilization and restoration projects;
3. Institute programmatic weed control
activities along shoreline.
4. Promote bioengineering techniques
for shoreline stabilization projects.
1. Install native riparian species;
2. Incorporate LWD into bank
stabilization and restoration projects.
As noted in the inventory and characterization report and summarized above, many of the
alterations to shoreline functions and ecosystem processes in the Green/Duwamish River are due
to watershed scale issues within the upper watershed which cannot be fully restored or addressed
in the lower river section through Tukwila. However, hydrologic, water quality, and habitat
restoration measures in the City do have the potential to improve the overall functioning of this
important section of Green/Duwamish River ecosystem at the transition from fresh to salt water.
2.3.1 Regional
The importance of the Green/Duwamish ecosystem within the Puget Sound has resulted in
significant focus on this area in terms of restoration potential. With the federal listing of
Chinook and bull trout as endangered species, watershed planning in the region (e.g., WRIA 9)
has focused on developing a Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9, 2005), to which the City of Tukwila
is a party. The plan establishes goals, objectives, and programmatic and site specific actions to
address restoration of habitat critical to salmon species in the Green/Duwamish watershed. In
general, the approach used by the regional entities around Tukwila (e.g. WRIA 9, King County)
May 2007 9
343
appears to be consistent with the overall national restoration framework in the sense that the
proposed projects address a broad base of ecosystem functions.
The Lower Duwamish Damage Assessment. Remediation and Restoration Program is a federal
program (Natural Resource Damage Assessment NRDA) that is addressing habitat restoration,
as part of remediation of contaminated sites (including sediments) in the lower Part of the river. I
The goal of the program is to "restore. replace. or acauire the equivalent of those natural
resources injured as the result of hazardous substance releases" over decades. The program has
developed a set of strategies that will include rehabilitation. creation. and enhancement
proiects.at various locations (not vet identified specifically) in the Lower Duwamish.once
remediation of contaminated sites has occurred. Marshes and mudflats are a to priority.
Riparian buffers. especially those adjoining marsh habitats. are also targeted because they
support wildlife. filter runoff and provide material inputs. The strategy, which is currently under
evaluation through a programmatic EIS, has identified several Habitat Focus Areas (HFAs),
where restoration funding would be directed. The highest priority location for restoration
protects is in HFA 1. which extends from the north tip of Harbor Island in Seattle. to the North,
Winds Weir site in Tukwila (most of the transition zone). Upriver from there. (HFA -3) to the
confluence of the Green and Black Rivers (RMI l) is the third priority area and further un- river,
to River Mile 32 (the Lower Green River) is fourth. Any projects located in HFA 3 or 4 will be
subject to minimum size standards and will be considered only if they are components of
projects located in HFA -1.
To allow for the implementation of the restoration goals within a watershed context, it is
imperative that the City of Tukwila continue to coordinate its actions with other regional entities,
especially the WRIA 9 and NRDA programs. These entities often focus specifically on
restoration (e.g., Puget Sound Action Team), or have a broad mandate to address the
Green/Duwamish system (e.g., King County, Green River Flood Control Zone District).
2.3.2 City
Tukwila has already engaged in the greater regional restoration effort for the Green/Duwamish
River. The City Council has ratified the WRIA 9 Plan and contributes resources to maintain
operating staff. Tukwila has worked within the larger Green/Duwamish River Ecosystem
restoration project to acquire properties that are either currently functioning as restoration sites
(Cecil B. Moses park, Codiga Park), or have the potential for restoration (North Winds Weirl
restoration under construction) and Duwamish Gardens). WRIA 9 and other regional partners
are currently working together to monitor baseline conditions (e.g., Anchor, 2004; Pentec, 2004;
Terralogic and Landau, 2004).
2.4 Completed Projects
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
I Administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service (DOI, FWS)
344 May 2007 10
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
Several projects have already been completed in the Green/Duwamish River. These projects
provide an excellent opportunity to learn about what river restoration measures are the most
effective. For example, it appears that the back channel that was excavated at Codiga Farm Park
provides important habitat for migrating juvenile fish (Corps Seattle District, 2004). These
projects and their current status are shown below in Table 3, listed by river mile (RM). The
general location of these projects in Tukwila is shown on Map 1.
May 2007 11
345
Map
identifier
C -0
C -1
Project
of s Seattle Fleets and.
Facilities intertidal habitat
restoration
Kenco Marine intertidal
habitat restoration site
(also referred to as the
T i n g Basin #3 Project)
C -2 Coastal America Turning
Basin restoration
enhancement site
Cecil B. Moses Park at
C 3 North Winds Weir. left
bank) off-site channel
estuary wetland, intertidal
habitat restoration site.
Codiga Parkes o
C -4 channel, estuary wetland
site
February 2007
ed Restoration Projects in Tukwila
Table 3. Completed lead
Current Agent encIe
StatuslStag
City of Seattle
Compensate f l new
d
i b ye,
intertidal habitat. installing. native instaltive
riparian vegetation. n
habitat features..
To restore the resources affected
by releases of hazardous
substances from CSOs and storm
drains with restoration of
salmonid habitat being a priority.
Clean up area that was developed
and plant with native d
brackish marsh vegetation
Create off-channel, shallow water
habitat in the transition zone to
restore intertidal marsh.
Create off channel juvenile fish
refuge and wetland habitat ater
including deep-
eas
ne Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 06002
Tukwila Shorelt
Completed,
monitoring and,
maintenance
underway by City of
Seattle.
Completed project
but maintenance and
monitoring unknown
underway
Muckleshoot staff at
tie.
Completed project.
Maintenance is
ongoing as volunteer
effort.
Completed project,
maintenance schedule
unknown.
Monitoring progr
is in effect.
Completed project,
C ee i ty and.
People for Puget,
Sound volunteers are
working to restore
riparian area
waterward of off
Gurrerktly--0Qwned by
Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe. NOAA Fisheries
did the contracting
work for the projec
Seattle, King County,
and Ecology also
involved.
Corps of Engineers
Elliot Bay /Dt am
Restoration Panel
(2000)
Corps of Engineers
unding
City of Seattle
(mitigation
1991 settlement
meneysfunds from
suit filed -ham
13niteat
City -for "alleged
injuries to natural
resources
1991 settlement for
"alleged injuries to
na tural resources
River
Mite
FM 5 2
RM 5.3
RM 5.4
RM 6.2
Left bank
f
Long -term
funding. RIv 8.
Tukwila will be Right
responsible for bank
maintenance
monitoring
12
Map P roles arne
Identif
C -5a
w
one L (por
D as been repa
Site 3. Lil point Levee
ck(Re air
.Set_ba
Z40'1
5 La pianta Levee
Site
S c
etet -b�
l
The
ch nati
monitoring programs'
strength; me habitat
bank
a� comple in I
Comple phases
crease 1999 and 2002
existing levee, at toe
Set back Ju L
to -provide instream a
that e
resulted ,Levee re air f mid
1stalla with
ba lasted
set
o e bench to be
native. yezetation.
resulted in vee
Levee re air that r o
set h-c� k and= tallation ��,rfh
to be last
she bench �e.tatton
sat_=
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration r 'a=
Lea,d "Agen °r
rer►t''" ;,xA9enoi5
Cur e.,;,
tatustSta9 e
action
C0 din 2
corn
bench no
plantin m fete
�etco
Constr
C �letedin
on end
pl�tin b
fete
et cons
King County
funding
1IVI 15.1
Agency f V
bank
1, 300 feet_i
F enter etas eft galalc
Kin Coun
re air fundin
R_'
Left 13a
Federal erneraenc
Kih� Count re air fundan
3.0 RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
It is important to note that the monitoring and maintenance aspects of several of these completed
projects are not being fully executed. Implementation of effective monitoring and maintenance
of these projects is needed to match current national guidance for restoration and to maximize
the potential for restoration success.
Based on the key ecosystem functions that are currently altered, there appear to be two specific
types of restoration actions that will most benefit the Green/Duwamish ecosystem in Tukwila.
These actions are intended to boost the levels of ecosystem functioning as part of a self
sustaining ecosystem that will limit the need for future manipulation. While these projects are
intended to restore many ecosystem functions, the restoration activities will occur in the highly
urban valley bottom, and as a result, cannot fully achieve pre disturbance channel conditions. In
addition, some restoration actions must occur at the watershed scale, which will restore
ecosystem functions that cannot be addressed solely within Tukwila.
1. Enlarging channel cross sectional area. This action will increase flood storage, allow
for more stable levees, restore floodplain area, provide a larger intertidal zone in this
important transitional area, and provide a more natural transition from aquatic to upland
habitats. This action could include the use of setting back levees and re- sloping banks to
reduce steepnessrevetments, and the excavation of historic fill or floodplain materials to
cr tc back channels.
2. Creating off channel areas. This action would create off channel areas through the
excavation of historic fill or floodplain materials to create back channels.
3. Reconnecting wetland habitat to the river. This action would reconnect an old oxbow
wetland to the river. allowing for off channel habitat (Nelson Side Channel).
4. Removing fish barriers where tributary streams discharge to the river. This action
would remove flap gates and install fish friendly flap gates at the mouths of Tukwila's
three major. streams (Gilliam. Southaa.te and Riverton) and possibly restore habitat area at
these locations in the shoreline jurisdiction.
5. Enhancin a existing habitats. This action will improve the functioning of the existing
aquatic, riverine wetland, and riparian habitats that currently exist along the
Green/Duwamish River. These actions could include the removal of non native invasive
vegetation, installation of native riparian vegetation, and installation of LWD below
ordinary high water.
3.1 Potential Projects and Restoration Priorities
Significant past work has occurred to identify specific restoration projects within the shorelines
of Tukwila (Pentec, 2004, Anchor 2003, WRIA 9, 2005 etc.). Many of these projects were
identified in the Inventory and Characterization Report, and are described below. Most of the
restoration projects are part of ongoing restoration planning through the WRIA. 9 watershed
planning process. Table 4 includes a project description and notes the current status of each
348 May 2007 14
project. The project number correlates to those locations shown on Maps 1 through 4 in Section
8., Attachments.
Opportunities exist to enhance riparian vegetation along the majority of the Green/Duwamish
River, as mentioned above and in previous reports (e.g., Anchor 2003). Since these
opportunities are so ubiquitous, they are not specifically addressed in Table 4.
To aid the City in developing an internal ranking system, a preliminary qualitative (high,
medium, low) project ranking system is employed. This system has been modified to place the
highest priority on those projects located within the transition zone (from the East Marginal Way
S bridge, northward),
High priority projects will typically:
Address both hydrologic and habitat ecosystem functions;
Have opportunity for multiple funding sources;
Include freshwater tributary channels; and/or
Not require additional property acquisition.
Be located in the transition zone
Medium priority projects will typically:
Address limited ecosystem functions; and
Be eligible for multiple funding sources, and/or require property acquisition.
Low priority projects will typically:
Only focus on habitat enhancement;
Will be used as mitigation to offset impacts elsewhere; or
Not be eligible for multiple funding sources.
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
This ranking system is applied to the projects that have been proposed to -date, as described in
Table 4.
May 2007 15
349
Project Name 1 Locatio
1
Shallow water habitat creation Hamm Creek
stream and estuary restoration site
RM 4.7 -5.5 a ba
2
Area to soup oration/enhancement site
Basin
RM 5.4
3
Duwamish Riverbank Stabilization at S. lob'
St.
RM 5.$ Right bank
4
North Wind Weir off-site channelestuary
wetland (Also known as 3ite l,,
habitat restoration site.
RM 6.3
Right bank
5
Bank restoration revetment setback
RM 5.5 6.6
Left bank
6
Riverton Creek channel a d tidal wetland
enhancements
RM 6.6
May 2007
Project Description Goals
Restore intertidal mudflats and channel edge habitats
to create low velocity and/or shallow water habitat.
Rehabilitate riparian areas.
Combined area totaling 10 acres.
Add to restoration that occurred under this project
south side of inlet, clear invasive vegetation, etc.
Stabilize eroding bank, regrade• 7e store 400 If of
riparian vegetation
Create two acres of off- channel, shallow water
habitat in the transition zone to restore intertidal
marsh area.
Protect improve riparian vegetation. Remove
armor and fill and increase area within
existing bank the estuarine transition zone.
Table 44. Potential R estoration Projects and Initial Project Ranking
L ead Agttt Y °C
Agencies
Ecosystem Processes t Shoreline Current Status I Funding d
Restore tributary access by removing fish passage
b and modifying stream mouth area.
Rehabilitate riparian and wetland slough areas in
their current locations.
Functions Addressed
Channel Floodplaininteracnon
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Fluvial Sediment Transport
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant ConununttY
Source of LWD
Targeted land area is not
yet available for
completion of project
Funding not yet identified
Exploratory; Property
acquisition needed
Funding not yet identified
CIP Project #94 -DR05
Funding notes identified
yes
ml
remediati
Conshnction for fish and
wildlife habitat is pendlNg
but scheddUled n. in n
F
Ki CouoPr IWRlA9
ject DUW-
(2005 11)
To Be Determined
teitr;t anarntetieri
County/WR 9
Schedule not yet King 005, Project DUW
established 9)
Fun di n g not yet identified
Coordination with City and
WSDOT in progress
ea ptnilw Stud° and 70°';
O,i..n u nderwa•'
Grant funding will bg
soueht for final
aec n n n
c_O
King County/WRIA 9
(2005, Project DUW-
CIP# 9g -DR
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 060023
Potential for
Success
Good
MAMA
Good
ie
eeateta
Good
To Be Determined 134'01064s
Good
Rung 5,t5W� 9
(2005,Fr Pr0j ;tDUW
eenteut
Good
_:.r
Ranking
Notes
High ecological priority; in
#4ediu uan one- would
tH need to be acquired
Addresses multiple ecosystem
functions; would expand
f.4ediu existing restoration, jsin
m transition rons_,__L'land would
need to be acquired
Addresses limited ecosystem
functions, does not increase
channel are„;? to transition
Irene land would need to be
acquired
Addresses multiple ecosystem
functions, land already
acquired; is in transition zone,
High some construction funds
secured
H -i
Addresses multiple ecosystem
functions; in t t iii n
&and would need to be
acquired
Addresses multiple ecosystem
functions, in a! "iron zn'lf
land already in public
High ownership; opportunity to
team with WSDOT
project Name Location
7
Shallow water habitat creation
RM 5.5
7.0
8
Duwatnish Gardens, off channel habitat area
(formerly called the Carasino property)
RM7
Right bank
9
S. 115 St. Bank setback
restoration and revetment
RM 6.9
7.2 Right bank
10
Duwarntsh Riverhend l4ill Park %riverbank
setback, off- channel area, heath
re storalionStabilisarns t-n
ear S. I l5 St
RM6.9-
7.2 Right bank
12
Potential estuary restoration enhancement at
mouth of Southgate Creek
May 2007
I t
4 2 "d Ave. S. Bank restoration
RM71
7.9
RMS
Project Description Goals
Restore intertidal mudfiats and channel
a ridgy ch
to create low velocity areas adjacent
Create 2.1 acres of off channel fish refuge habitat
Remove existing armor, reshape and revegetate the
river bank
Same location as 10, below, but different strategy
Relocate S. 1 15 to allow for bank setback and
sgtabilization. provide off- channel area with beach,
and riparian vegetation as Hart of nark develonmen'e
Improve riparian habitat throughout this segment, east
Relocate a water main pipe to reconfigure
bank and allow for a low vegetated b oo be to
constructed. Add large woody debris comp
the channel.
Provide fish refuge area
Ecosystem Processes Shoreline
Functions Addressed
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Fluvial Sediment Transport
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Fluvial Sediment Transport
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Source of LWD
Transition from fresh to salt water
Current Status Funding
No specific project is King County/WRIA 9
planned (2005, Project DUW-
Phased project, funding not 7)
yet identified
Land isacouired available
�Ba-bas- Stalled
gfFunding yet identifier.
to design and cunstu_et
beiot'
City owns eastern portion
Funding unknown
City owns laadeastetat
petition
Conceptual design.
comoleted_.Funding for
detailed design &s
construction not_yet
identified5et
Schedule not yet
established
Funding not yet identified
(Note: a bank stabilization,
protect was emmleted in
200 ns a s emeronic
renair to nrnteet the
existing water line LA/D
was and riparian vegetation
were installed as .sart of the,
project
Lead Agency or
Agencies
King County/WRIA 91
City of Tukwila
(2005, Part of Project
area DUW-7
CIP Project #06•DR02
King County /WRIA 9
City of Tukwila
(2005, Project DU W-
6)
Schedule not yet
established
Funding not yet identified
King County/WR 9
City of Tukwila
(2005, Project DUW-
5)
City of Tukwila, land
acquisition needed.
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant 540.0600
Potential for
Success
Good
;sonmephie
wanted
Good
hre
aeolettt
Good
SinallaElo
d
Tukwila aFte-previons
Cl? Project 994 -DRO9
Desmoine-levee)
Fair
Water -line
eesstta+tts
options
Ranking
135
fp transition,
z t_o_LtIrn
Nigh
ffighli,sw
Medium
Fair
besated-at-dyilamie Medium
area atend et
Southgate Greet"
Notes
Addresses multiple ecosystem
functions; land would need to
be acquired
Addresses multiple ecosystem
functions, $726,000 in grant
funds acqu to -date, land
owned by Cih -he
aesittiredi-jp,aled in transition
zo—. ne. eligible for grant
funding.
14 i ghMedis Addresses limited ecosystem
ua functions' is in transition zone.
Addresses multiple ecosystem.
functions, land in Subl; 5�
ewnershin, nay
would need to be relocated
landward. 90ee-aet3°
Addresses limited but
important ecosystem
functions; water line
constrains design options
Addresses limited ecosystem
functions: located at dynamic
area at end of Southgate Cree,:
project Name i Locatiir
13
Ban restoration 8 revetment setback
8.2 -8.9
L
14
Shallow water habitat creation
'AM
11.0 1341150 10
15
wetland on rig
Create off channel, batik ht
RM 99
16a
Foster Golf Course Riverbank improvements
App r App roximat el y RMto
'Naha, Retorati n
Foster olt aurae
ro'c RM
Replace t ebris b of thew ea ana itnptovE
conflnce ai B v a r a cGte ntB d 5 u fah reins an rring
1mPro tiPar
Rivet by r eatOt ettrBueirhetgent marsh and
R M 11
M a y 2001
NufrientGychng water
t fresh to salt
drelocateGreenRiver Transitionfrom
tic Plant Community
e rte slowEnoent a eas add native riparia Characteris woody debris Maintain
Reshape create slow wear areas, Source of OD
Retention of Par
plan
Particula
E
Proj
large wo
is and 1 Channel Floodpl �n� n
e
rive vegetation lack ti Create on
dy
Processes t Shoreline
Ecosyste
el Floodplainlnteraction
C Fun Address
Function
Channel
of Partic
Nutrient Cycling
w o ff-chan nel itjoo from fresh to salt water
ity
te
of ne rated Trans Characteristic Plant Cotton
Create a mtOmnt of 15 acres t riparian vegetation with associated Maintain
s hallow water f m vegetation Source of L`ND
ttQarr
ante of Particul
Retentio
1 of
Interaction
Ch
Nutrient CY
l
Nu cing
Transtnon from fresh to saltwat
to
Deseription i Goals
of el. c aner c hallow Ma m m ion tore Rlant salt water
Commun
areas create onEl construction is
h WD
an
eta refuge past
lnu c n
h F
g to
l Fl o odplam hrteraction
Chant o {Particulates
Retention
Current Status !Funding
,h bra
e
Sch
e stablish ed
et
'Funding not yet identified
Schedule o r project plan �A 9
Sch t blished. I g Coontypoi t1'r"
n 00 (2005, Project a
ProPe b necessary
Phased p ro j ect, 6
Schedule or projec
establis not
Y opeRy acquisition
requi
Funding n yet identifed
Scheduled for 20
Source
Project #03 .0 City ofT in
cc
...ode, k i• ad' we`
rood a n c
articula
\i
r
afire t
Conce ptual plan
Funding not yet identified
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
2da Source
1)
Ring Ca fWR1A4
tm ectDl
(2005, Prot)
1
hy =a Shoreline Restoration Planning
Sl4 CrantNn•0600234
Notes
O
eente"`
Ring County 8),
(2005,ProjectL
ERP Pe
G
G
d
Good
Addresse multiple requ ires ecosystem
pro perty V
o rtant
Addresses multiple tnd nB
ecosystem ot started
functions; itiou
Medium
a cquisitio n
Low
EUded for use as
Site on, therefor sho tton
mitigate us for resmra
notbe a focus
ul' I T F
e
Medium
Addresses multiple uons� system
May 2007
Project Name Location
18
Ft. Dent Park riparian area enhancement on east
bank and levee setback
RM 11.4-
11.7
Right bank
19
Gilliam Creek fish passage improvements and
riparian rehabilitation
RM 12.5
Left bank
20
Nelson Side Channel Off channel habitat
rehabilitation
RM 12.5
12.65
21
Side channel project on riverward side of levee
Rlvl 12.8
22
Off channel and wetland habitat creation
Rh-I 12.5
13.5
23
Acquisition, levee setback and habitat
rehabilitation
Rot 14.7
15.3
Right bank
Project Description Goals
Setback the existing levee to create a low vegetated
bench for low velocity and /or shallow water habitat.
Plant native vegetation and add large woody debris.
Remove existing flood control flap gate from mouth
of Gilliam Creek and add fish ladder to restore fish
passage but retain flood control. Approximately
2,000 feet of the Creek would be improved by
widening the channel, adding spawning gravel, large
woody debris, and riparian vegetation.
Connect remnant river channel (Nelson wetland)
with river to create off channel refugia for juvenile
fish. Restore river bank by re- sloping river side
channel adjacent levee and planting riparian
vegetation.
Potential side channel creation in disconnected
floodplain at Riverview Plaza. Create freshwater
wetland habitat, flood storage, low velocity shallow
water areas for food production and fish refuge.
Create an engineered side channel to connect and
enhance approximately 10 acres of wetland. Project
would provide floodplain re- connection and juvenile
Chinook habitat during peak time rearing and
migration. Improve the river banks, enhance wetland
areas, and create tributary channels.
Setback existing levee to widen the river channel,
provide a low vegetated bench, install woody
debris, and plant native riparian vegetation.
Ecosystem Processes Shoreline
Functions Addressed
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Source of LWD
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Upland sediment generation
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Source of LWD
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Transition front fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Source of LWD
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Transition from fresh to salt water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Source of LWD
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Source of LWD
Current Status Funding
No schedule or project pla
established
Funding not yet identified
Needs multiple agency
coordination. Schedule or
project plan not yet
established.
Funding not yet identified
Conceptual planning stage
Funding not yet identified
City-owned land,
preliminary conceptual
plan
Funding not yet identified;
coordination with WR1A 9
has begun
Schedule or project plan
not yet established.
Requires participation of
public and private
landowners
Funding not yet identified
Conceptual planning stage.
Requires acquisition of
river right -of -way just
north of Desimone levee
setback project.
Funding not yet identified
Lead Agency or
Agencies
King County/WRIA 9
(2005, Project LG -17)
King County/WRIA 9
(2005, Project LG -16),
Ecosystem
Restoration Project
City CIP Project #98-
011.05
King County/WRIA 9
(2005, Project LG -15)
City CIP Project #03-
PK04
City of Tukwila.
Potential location for
restoration and/or off
site wetland mitigation
King County/WRIA 9
(2005, Project LG -14)
King County /WR1A 9
(2005, Project LG-13)
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning— SMA Grant No. 0600234
Potential for
Success
Good Medium
Fair
to restore
eonaeetwicy
Good
S+arilaete- 6ediga
eeatem
Good Medium
Good Medium
Ranking Notes
Addresses multiple ecosystem
functions over a limited area
Addresses important
freshwater tributary and
High multiple ecosystem functions;
requires fish ladder ro e to
connectivity
High
Addresses multiple ecosystem
functions; conceptual design
completed, property in public
ownership.
Addresses multiple ecosystem
functions; does not require
property acquisition;
coordination with WRIA 9 has
begun to pursue eligibility for
matching funds,
Addresses multiple ecosystem
functions; requires property
acquisition; could provide
significant area
Good Addresses limited ecosystem
Medium functions, requires property
acquisition
19
Project Name I Location
24
Desimone Levee Projects 1 -3
RM —14 -15
25
Segale Levee Projects 44
FM 13¢.
26
Aeeteisitierriited-eQff-channel habitat Johnson
River and stream. rehabilitation-at— e
Creek
RM 4412-17.3
May 2007
La Pinirte Levee Setback
V 16-4
Ecosystem processes I Shoreline
Functions Addressed
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Tnesition-fvere-f b sale -water
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Source afLWD
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Nutrient Cycling
Transitiaa free
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Source of LWD
Channel Floodplain Interaction
Retention of Particulates
Upland sediment generation
a j dacent to the rive. Remove fish passage Nutrient Cycling
Project Description Goals
Levee set back projects to repair/replace existing
oversteepened levees
Levee set back projects to repair/replace existing
oversteepened levees
juvenile i t a sa lmonid flood refuge and rearing
habitat Johnson Creek?4��
barriers and re-align s
I t eanderin^ chap th hahrtat f_ot� spaiiew Maintain Characteristic Plant Community irnmscts to fish ha Community
a
aenaeerlt�
mts itlK: d enhance Source of LWD
degraded riparian areal Channel Flora
Setback levee to allow for channel exonnsioa mid
slope bench for denting
net w
4e.sa rater
with native vegetation• l br Interaction
Retention of Particulates
UDlan__ d_'d! veneration
Nutrient Cvclins
aintain Characteristic Plant Community.
Source of LW2
Current Status 1 Funding
CIP -level plans
Funding unknown
CEP-level plans
Funding unlmown
Conceptual planning stage.
Annexation proposal to
Tukwila is under review.
Fundingnefye
itlentlt tv e
developer as mitiWk
wcp al nlanninv. stave,
even rvrnnstmctrion trolls
146 S to S 200 to by
done in con5unction with
went of site
private dew
Lead Agency or
Agencies
King County Flood
Hazard Management
Plan 2006
King County Flood
Hazard Management
plaa200
King CountyIWRIA 9
(2005, Project LG -11),
detenvtined
City of Tukwila. King
Count
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No 060023
potential for
Success
Fair
Fair
oodFa+r
Creek
Ranking
Medium
Medium
Notes
Levee setback is less complex
in this location since the
is undeveloped at this
time: river system has
potential to be more dynamic
in this are?
Levee setback is less complex
in this location since the
property is undeveloped at this
time; river system has
RQ l g n rial to be more dynamic
"nl ttu e?
Addresses multiple ecosystem
Medium functions;
a erluiettiea
Addresses multiale v
Medimn functions.
May 2007
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
4.0 POLICY DEVELOPMENT
The City of Tukwila has been a partner in several projects within the greater Green/Duwamish
River Ecosystem Restoration Project (e.g., North Winds Weir and Codiga Farm property
acquisitions). Both projects are excellent examples of focusing restoration resources and efforts
on projects that address both hydrologic and habitat ecosystem functions.
The initial success of these efforts underscores the importance of the City of Tukwila working
with other national or regional entities to pursue significant restoration opportunities. While the
City may be able to pursue some restoration or enhancement opportunities without regional
partners, these types of projects will typically be smaller scale, lower priority actions (e.g., weed
control, native plantings).
The Draft SMP has policies related to shoreline restoration that will be incorporated into the
City's Comprehensive Plan. Specific policies include:
Policy 5.2.1: Coordinate shoreline planning and management activities with other,
local jurisdictions and their plans such as the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan and the,
King County Flood Hazard Management Plan to establish region -wide consistency in
addressing river issues with regional implications, such as economic development,
public access, wildlife habitat, water quality control and flood control.
Policy 5.2.2: Promote river stewardship and increase river awareness through actions,
which further shoreline goals, such as educational programs, community activities.
and partnerships with Tukwila residents. businesses, schools. government, and
community organizations.
New Policy 5.2.3: Promote and participate in the implementation of the Watershed
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Plan, including supporting the recommended
Projects located in Tukwila to improve the habitat functions of the Green /Duwamish
River. as well as the Plan policies and goals.
21
355
356
support another lead agency.
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
Policy 1 is intended to allow Tukwila to As
noted in the Inventory and Characters. ation Report, there are some issues, including water
river water reaches Tukwila, it is not possible to cool the water sufficiently to have a m aningful
effect on local habitat conditions.
Policy 2. Identify specific restoration opportunities within Tukwila where the City can take the
1 d with support from other regional entities.
identify high priority restoration projects. This method is intended to help the city focus its
efforts in an organized way.
Policy Provide incentives to new projects and proposed re development to preserve additional
ar behind existing levees to allow for levee setback and back channel projects.
Policy 3 is intended to provide the city a way to preserve area along the river corridor, and to
provide additional ar for future restoration activities. This policy is an incentive based
approach to preserving the same level of economic development allowed under current zoning
Policy 1. Provide stormwater utility rate incentives and /or new stormwatcr regulations to
promote enhanced water quality tr atmcnt measures.
Policy 1 is intended to improve water quality within the Green/Duwamish River. This is another
incentive based approach to balance the impacts of new development. If successful, this policy
could be expanded to address retro fitting expanded treatment into existing systems. This policy
will also help to acknowledge the connection of ar as outside of shoreline jurisdiction to the
S will require changes in the City's c
regulations to meet the new requirements and promote improvements in water quality.
Policy 5. Provide monitoring and adaptive management of restoration projects implemented
within the city.
Policy 5 is untended to move the city into a leading
day to day maintenance (e.g., maintenance of irrigation systems) and adaptive management of
these restoration sites to ensure that they have the highest potential for success. Monitoring and
maintenance are key elements of the restoration framework, and will be essential to the
exist to support thccc activities.
May 2007 22
PEE; 3.
Policy 8
Encourage public involvement in the restoration of the shoreline.
projects-that would not :;cc
5.0 IMPLEMENTATION
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
s. This- poky also supports types of
The implementation portion of restoration planning typically requires more detailed site specific
information than is available at this time. This section provides an implementation approach
consistent with the restoration framework and guidance for SMP development (WAC 173-26
201(2)(f)(vi)).
5.1 Funding and Partnership Opportunities
Funding opportunities for restoration projects include both federal and state grants and legislative
funds administered by state agencies. for which the City would typically urovide a match from
its Qeneral fimd. For potential projects in Tukwila, the greatest likelihood to obtain funding
would result from continued participation in the WRIA 9 forum and /or strategic partnering with
King County and state and federal agencies. Targeting funding requests to address levee setback
projects would fit well into the scientific and restoration plans /goals of the organizations listed
below. A few of these programs and organizations most relevant to Tukwila are described
below.
5.1.1 Puget Sound Action Team
The state legislature has appropriated a total of $182 million for state agencies and university
education programs for implementing the 2005 -2007 Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery
Plan (PSAT, 2005). Funding is allocated by both priority area (e.g., habitat restoration (13
May 2007
23
357
358
percent), stormwater (29 percent)) and state agency (e.g., Ecology, WDFW, WSU Extension,
etc.). The habitat restoration funds would be the best fit for opportunities in Tukwila.
5.1.2 Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB)
With the listing of salmonid species under the Endangered Species Act in 1999, the Legislature
created the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Composed of citizens appointed by the Governor
and five state agency directors, the Board provides grant funds to protect or restore salmon
habitat and assist related activities. It works closely with local watershed groups and has helped
finance over 500 projects. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board awarded $7.1 million during the
first five funding cycles for salmon habitat protection, restoration, and assessment projects in the
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9). These grants build on other
funding sources such as the King County Conservation District and Waterways 2000. The site
specific opportunities in Tukwila (levee setbacks and off channel habitat restoration on the
Green River) that have been identified in the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan are good candidates
and have the greatest likelihood of receiving SRFB funding.
5.1.3 King Conservation District
The King Conservation District (KCD) is a non regulatory natural resources assistance agency
founded in 1949. The District promotes conservation through demonstration projects,
educational events, providing technical assistance, and, in some cases, providing or pointing the
way to funds that may be available for projects. The WRIA 9 Forum allocates approximately
$634,000 in King Conservation District funds annually to support habitat protection and
restoration projects, stewardship projects and programs, and essential technical assessments. As
of 2005, the highest priority for WRIA 9 KCD funding became projects and programs that are
informed by the strategies identified by the watershed Habitat Plan and the Strategic Assessment.
5.1.4 Natural Resource Damage Assessment Funds
The history of industrial land use within the Green/Duwamish River valley has resulted in
discharge of pollutants to water and soils in the area. To remediate and mitigate for these
impacts, the United States brought litigation against the City of Seattle and King County. The
result of the settlement agreement resulted in the availability of National Resource Damage
Assessment (NRDA) funds for ecological restoration in the Duwamish. Several projects (e.g.,
Turning Basin 3, Herring's House Habitat Restoration) have already been completed in this
vicinity. These funds are managed by NOAA, another partner in the Green/Duwamish River
Ecosystem Restoration Project.
5.1.5 King County Flood Control District
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
May 2007 24
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
King County is in the process of developing a new Flood Control District to address flooding
issues throughout the county. Current plans call for spending $335 million to implement the
recommendations included in the recently adopted Flood Hazard Management Plan (King
County, 2006). These plans and projects include the installation of setback levees and inclusion
of habitat features as part of the overall flood control project. The plan was adopted by the King
County Council January 16, 2007 and on April 16, 2007 the Council adopted one flood control
district for the entire county.
5.2 Timelines and Benchmarks
In the context of the SMP update, restoration planning is a long -term effort. As stated earlier, the
SMP guidelines include the general goal that local master programs "include planning elements
that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within
the shoreline area" (WAC 173- 26- 201(c)). As a long -range policy plan, it is difficult to
establish meaningful timelines and measurable benchmarks in the SMP by which to evaluate the
effectiveness of restoration planning or actions. Nonetheless, the legislature has provided an
overall timeframe for future amendments to the SMP. In 2003, Substitute Senate Bill 6012
amended the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) to establish an amendment schedule
for all jurisdictions in the state. Once the City of Tukwila amends its SMP (on or before
December 1, 2009), the City is required to review, and amend if necessary, it's SMP once every
seven years (RCW 90.58.080(4)). During this review period, the City could document progress
toward achieving shoreline restoration goals. The review could include:
Re- evaluating adopted restoration goals, objectives, and policies;
Summarizing both planning efforts (including application for and securing grant funds)
and on- the ground actions undertaken in the interim to meet those goals; and
Revising the SMP restoration planning element to reflect changes in priorities or
objectives.
Another mechanism that may serves to establish timelines and benchmarks would be
is the incorporation of projects in the -a shoreline restoration program organized
the City's capital improvement program (CIP). Similar to an
infrastructure CIP, a shoreline restoration CIP would be evaluated and updated regularly. The
CIP would be focused on site specific projects and would be funded through grants. Further,
other CIP projects, such as stormwater facility improvements, will could be evaluated to
determine if their design could advance shoreline restoration goals.
5.3 Mechanisms and Strategies for Effectiveness
The SMP guidelines for restoration planning state that local programs should "...appropriately
review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals"
(WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(f)). Phase 3 of the restoration framework described previously (based on
Palmer et al, 2005) provides a general roadmap for assessing restoration actions and revising the
approach to meeting restoration goals. It includes the following objectives:
Monitor post- restoration conditions;
May 2007
25
359
360
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
Adaptively manage restoration projects; and
Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities.
These core objectives have been expanded upon by regional entities focused on restoration such
as the WRIA 9 Forum and the Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP). Strategic principles and
concepts intended to guide ecosystem recovery are expressed in guidance publications (PSNP,
2004) and the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9, 2006). The strategic principles and
concepts are very briefly summarized below:
Purpose and Need. Potential restoration projects should be consistent with overarching
goals and objectives. For example, the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan establishes near
term (the next 10 years) and long -term (50- to 100 -year) goals to improve viable
salmonid population parameters, such as increased productivity (population
growth/abundance), improved genetic diversity, and improved distribution of habitat
throughout the watershed (spatial structure).
Restoration Principles. Restoration planning should be strategic and restoration design
should be based on carefully developed goals and objectives. Follow -through, or
monitoring, should be employed, including development of performance criteria and use
of adaptive management in project development.
Monitoring Principles. Three types of monitoring are defined: 1) implementation
monitoring to track which potential programs and projects are carried out; 2)
effectiveness monitoring to determine if habitat objectives of the program or project have
been achieved; and validation monitoring to confirm whether proposed restoration
actions are achieving the overall objectives for restoration. Monitoring should be driven
by specific questions, goals, and objectives and should be used as the basis for
determining if restoration goals are being met. Monitoring should be long -term and
interdisciplinary. Another component of monitoring is information management; data
should be well documented and available to others.
Adaptive Management Principles. Adaptive management is a process that uses
research and monitoring to allow projects to proceed, despite inherent uncertainty and
risk regarding its consequences. Adaptive management is best accomplished at a
regional or watershed scale, but can be used at a project level to increase knowledge
about ecosystems and how they respond to restoration actions.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
State guidelines require all jurisdictions to address shoreline restoration planning as part of the
Shoreline Master Program update process (WAC 173- 26- 201(2)(f)). This restoration plan
presents an overall framework to allow the City of Tukwila to pursue the restoration of
ecosystem functioning within the Green/Duwamish River ecosystem. Key alterations to
ecosystem functioning were identified in previous inventory and characterization work:
May 2007 26
Based on these alterations, we identified fivetwe key restoration actions for the aquatic
ecosystems within Tukwila, as explained in Section 3:
1. Enlarging channel cross sectional area. This action will increase flood storage, allow
May 2007
1. The overall area over which key ecosystem functions occur is significantly reduced
from historic conditions. This area includes the important zone between fresh and salt
water that provides a transition for migrating fish.
2. Aquatic and wetland habitats are largely homogeneous in terms of both hydrology and
vegetative structure, and these habitats are typically restricted to the area within levees
and revetments within the City of Tukwila.
3. Degradation of water quality, especially water temperature, in the watershed above
Tukwila has effects that cannot be fully mitigated within the City.
4. Current levees would likely not meet current engineering standards.
gr-eater-4ntertidal zone, and provide a smoother transition from aquatic to upland
habitats. This action could include the use
excavation of historic fill or floodplain materials to create back channels.
Creating of off channel areas.
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
2,
3. Reconnecting wetland habitat to the river.
4. Remove fish barriers where tributary streams discharge to the river.
5. Enhance existing habitats.
existing aquatic, riverine wetland, and riparian habitats that currently exist along the
Grcen/Duwamish River.
Based on the review of existing listed projects in Table 4, it appears that these goals are at the
core of most of the projects being implemented via regional restoration efforts. The City of
Tukwila is the lead on several at least one of these projects, and is pursuing additional projects.
The City will maintain its active role in regional restoration efforts, and continue to focus on
improvement of functions in the Green/Duwamish River ecosystem, with proiects in the
Transition Zone being the highest priority.
27
361
362
7.0 REFERENCES
Anchor Environmental, LLC. 2004. Lower Green River Baseline Habitat Report. Prepared for
WRIA 9.
Brinson, M.M., 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP-
DE-4, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. NTIS No. AD
A270053.
City of Tukwila. Capital Improvements Proaram, 2009 -2010.
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
E. S. Bernhardt, M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S.
Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad -Shah, D. Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett,
R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, G. M. Kondolf, P. S. Lake, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O'Donnell,
L. Pagano, B. Powell, and E. Sudduth. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration
Efforts. Science. 308(5722) 636 -637.
ESA Adolfson. 2006. City of Tukwila Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report.
Prepared for the City of Tukwila. Seattle, Washington.
Green Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9
Steering Committee (WRIA 9). August 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan Making Our
Watershed Fit for a King. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Forum. Seattle, Washington.
King County. 2003. Lower Green River Corridor Assessment. Dated November 2003, King
County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. 24 pp.
King County. 2006. Draft Flood Hazard Management Plan: King County, Washington. King
County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources
Division, Seattle, Washington.
Kondolf, G.M. 1995. Five elements for effective evaluation of stream restoration. Restoration
Ecology 3(2):133 -136.
Palmer, M.A., and J.D. Allan. 2006. Restoring Rivers; Policy Recommendations to Enhance
Effectiveness of River Restoration. Issues in Science and Technology, Winter 2006.
Accessable online at restoringrivers.org
Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, P.S. Lake, G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S,
Clayton, C.N. Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, D.L. Galat, S.G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D.D. Hart, B.
Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G.M. Kondolf, R. Lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K. O'Donnell, L. Pagano,
and E. Sudduth. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of
Applied Ecology. 42, 208 -217.
Pentec Environmental. 2003. DRAFT Inventory of Shoreline Habitat and Riparian Conditions of
the Green/Duwamish River Within the City of Tukwila. Prepared for City of Tukwila.
January 7, 2003, Report: 12578 -02.
May 2007 28
May 2007
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT). 2005. 2005 -2007 Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery
Plan. Olympia, Washington.
Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP). 2004. Guiding Restoration Principles. Technical
Report 2004 -03 available online: www.puaetsoundnearshore.or�
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (Shared Strategy). 2005. Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery
Plan. Submitted by Shared Strategy Development Committee. Seattle, Washington.
TerraLogic GIS, Inc and Landau Associates. 2004. Final Lower Duwamish Inventory Report.
Technical report prepared for WRIA 9 Steering Committee. Seattle, WA.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps Seattle District). 2004. Memorandum for
Record, Subject: Codiga Farms Baseline Monitoring Report. Reference: CENWS -PM-
PL-ER. July 23, 2004.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2004. Restoration Planning and the 2003
Shoreline Management Guidelines. Ecology Publication No. 04 -06 -022. Olympia,
Washington.
29
363
364
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
May 2007
Tukwila Shoreline Restoration Planning SMA Grant No. 0600234
Map 1. City of Tukwila Restoration Opportunity Sites: River Miles 4 -7
Map 2. City of Tukwila Restoration Opportunity Sites: River Miles 7 -11
Map 3. City of Tukwila Restoration Opportunity Sites: River Miles 11 -15
Map 4. City of Tukwila Restoration Opportunity Sites: River Miles 15 -17
Example Project Sheets
30
Project Purpose
Acquire available undeveloped
property along the Duwamish Estuary
Increase channel area
Enhance habitat characteristics in the important transition zone between fresh and
salt water
High Priority Restoration Action.
North Wind Weir
Site 1
Salmon Plan Site DUW 10
Part of Ecosystem Restoration
Project
Potential for —2 acres of
back/side intertidal channel
habitat
Completed project on the left bank
Current Status
Property acquired in 2001
Joint project between Tukwila, USACOE, and King County (lead)
Funding provided by SRFB, Elliot Bay/Duwamish Restoration program, Washington
State, King County, Seattle, and Tukwila.
Remediation completed 2009, construction of habitat improvements to begin 2009
365
366
Riverton Creek
Site
Salmon Plan Site DUW 8
Part of Ecosystem
Restoration Project
Potential for -3.4 acres
intertidal channel habitat
on freshwater input point.
Project Purpose
Replace flap gate with self regulating tide gate
Increase intertidal area area
Enhance habitat characteristics in the important transition zone between fresh and
salt water
Current Status
Site is in public ownership
Feasibility study and 70% design underway (2009) by City
Funding for final design and construction not identified City will apply for grant
funding
Duwamish
Gardens Site
Salmon Plan Site DUW 7
Part of Ecosystem
Restoration Project
Potential for —2.1 acres
of intertidal channel
habitat.
Project Purpose
Increase intertidal area area
Enhance habitat characteristics in the important transition zone between fresh and
salt water
Current Status
SRFB funding obtained for property acquisition, property acquired by City
City in process of securing site (demolition of house and other structures, fencing)
City will seek grant funding for construction
367
368
Gilliam Creek Site
Salmon Plan Site LG -16
Part of Ecosystem Restoration Project
(Corps of Engineers lead)
City CIP 98 -DR05
Potential for 2,000 linear feet of channel
restoration.
Project Purpose
Remove existing fish passage barrier
Install fish ladder
Enhance in- stream habitat characteristics with large wood and riparian vegetation.
Current Status
Funding not yet identified
Future coordination with WSDOT project to construct new highway interchange.
Nelson Side Channel Site
Salmon Plan Project LG -15
City CIP 03 -PK04
Potential for -2 acres of channel
rehabilitation.
Project Purpose
Connect remnant river channel to the river to create off channel refugia for
juvenile fish.
Restore river bank by sloping river side channel and adjacent levee.
Install riparian vegetation.
Current Status
Conceptual planning stage.
Funding not yet identified.
369