Re-Wilding to Increase Habitat Areas at the University of Washington

Cara Appel, Morgan Hoenig, Pouya Mard ehdiabadi, !evin Myers I" Introduction# What is $re-%ilding& and %hy should %e do it' Over recent years, the University of Washington has placed great importance on reducing its environmental impact, specifically as a measure to mitigate the harsh effects of climate change. 1 While these efforts are significant and valuable, it is imperative that other aspects of nature, such as wildlife habitat, are not pushed to the back burner. In this proposal, we will discuss matters surrounding re wilding! of spaces at the University of Washington, a term which will refer to the reintroduction or restoration of areas to return them to a natural state of biological richness, and to give them the ability to support a range of both flora and fauna species. "y re wilding landscapes around campus, the University will allow biological diversity to increase, and will also provide new spaces of valuable urban wilderness to the community. Urban wilderness gives city dwellers a chance to e#perience, celebrate, and appreciate nature on a day to day basis.$ It provides educational opportunities, provides habitat for a variety of plants and animals, gives local watersheds protection by filtering runoff, and has been shown to increase perception of %uality of life.& 'he University of Washington should take this opportunity to improve landscapes around campus that will offer both social and environmental benefits for a relatively low cost. II" Methods and Criteria# Ho% did %e choose our sites' When considering what kind of sites we wanted to look at for re wilding at the University, we agreed that the most well rounded approach would be to e#amine two different types of areas( one that is currently manicured,! or maintained through controlled landscaping, and one more natural! area that has been damaged or overtaken by invasive species. )fter choosing a number of possible locations, we went through them using a process of elimination, based on the
1

University of Washington, *limate )ction +lan.! ,eptember $--.. http(//f$.washington.edu/oess/sites/default/files/file/UW0$-*limate0$-)ction0$-+lan0$-1-1..pdf 2accessed 3ovember $-, $-1-4. $ Urban Wilderness Institute, )n )rgument for Urban Wilderness.! http(//www.urbanwildernessinstitute.org/inde#.html 2accessed 3ovember 1., $-1-4. & 5ester, 6andolph '., 3ova 7. "la8e9, and Ian ,. :oore, Whose Wild; 6esolving *ultural and "iological <iversity *onflicts in Urban Wilderness.! Landscape Journal 1=, no. $ 21...4( 1&> 1?@.

feasibility of each space. 'his feasibility reflection centered around a few key %uestions, which included( What are the current uses of each area; 5ow will re wilding of the different locations affect the University community; What are the safety concerns associated with each place;

)fter taking all of these points into consideration, the team concluded that the most viable campus locations to e#amine for re wilding are :c*arty 6avine, ne#t to the ?A th ,t. viaduct, and ,ylvan Brove, near <rumheller Countain 2refer to Cigure 14. In addition to choosing two potential locations to study, we established three criteria to measure the strength of the proposed pro9ects. 'hese criteria are( (easibility# Is re wilding in the given area a reasonable and realistic possibility, when current affairs and operations at the University of Washington are taken into account; )afety# Will changing the landscape create safety ha8ards for the University community; *ffectiveness# Will the re wilding pro9ect actually create/increase habitat for animals on and around the campus; 'hese three criteria will be used as tools for analysis and e#planation when we e#plain our recommendations and the pro9ect benefits to the University. III" Current )tatus of Proposed )ites McCarty Ravine# )ylvan +rove# ,ther# )fter further consideration of ,ylvan Brove as an option for an area to be restored, we began to consider other manicured! locations that are not used as fre%uently as ,ylvan Brove. One place that we began to consider is at the corner of 1A th )venue 3D and Brant Eane, 9ust south of 5enry )rt Ballery at the bus stop. 5ere, there is a bed of ivy, with a few trees interspersed, that is appro#imately A,--- s%uare feet in si8e 2refer to Cigure $4. 'his landscaped area is currently maintained 2the ivyFs growth is kept under control4 but not accessible to be used by students, and is also not beneficial for wildlife.

I-" Restoration .ogistics Collowing selection of a site, the restoration process will begin. )ccording to University of Washington Corest 6esources professor Gern Dwing, launching a restoration pro9ect and gathering resources is relatively easy, especially on an environmentally involved college campus.? 'he first step in this process is to establish a set of goals and methods. In this case, the goal of increasing habitat will be reached by first removing damaging invasive species 2ivy, blackberries, etc.4, followed by the planting of new vegetation that is native to the area, and that will provide resources for wildlife 2such as food and shelter4. +lant e#perts 6oy Carrow and *hris Watson from the University of Washington "otanical Bardens, as well as 7ohn Withey from the ,chool of Corest 6esources, provided recommendations for plants that would serve these purposes, which have been synthesi8ed into an easy to read table 2see Cigure &4. A "ased on information from a local nursery, it is e#pected to cost less than HA-- per 1,--- s%uare feet of restored area to purchase the plants on this list.@ )fter establishing a timeline and goals for the pro9ect, a volunteer base will need to be gathered. 'his can be accomplished by taking advantage of a number of resources already available at the University of Washington, including the ,ociety for Dcological 6estoration, and the 6estoration Dcology 3etwork, which would assist in distributing information about the pro9ect to gain volunteer support.> In accordance with advice given by Gern Dwing, resources such as food and portable sanitation units will be provided to volunteers at the restoration site, and one to two +ro9ect *oordinators! 2likely to be paid for their work4 will be contracted to organi8e the details of the pro9ect.= In addition to initial restoration efforts, an ongoing stewardship pro9ect should be established through the 6estoration Dcology 3etwork and/or the ,ociety for Dcological 6estoration to ensure that the re wilded areas are not again overtaken by invasive species once the pro9ect ends. Reco
? A

endations and /enefits

Dwing, Gern. +ersonal interview. University of Washington, ,chool of Corest 6esources. 3ovember 1A, $-1-. Carrow, 6oy. 6e( University of Washington +lant 6ecommendations.! Dmail 23ovember ., $-1-4. Watson, *hris. 6e( University of Washington +lant 6ecommendations.! Dmail 23ovember 1$, $-1-4. Withey, 7ohn. 6e( 6e%uest for feedback on D3II6 class pro9ect J ,ustainability ,tudio.! Dmail 23ovember 1$, $-1-4. @ Woodbrook 3ative +lant 3ursery. Inventory and +rices for Woodbrook 3ative +lant 3ursery.! October $&, $-1-. http(//woodbrooknativeplantnursery.com/plants/inventory/ 2accessed 3ovember 1@, $-1-4. > University of Washington ,tudent )ctivities Office, $-1- $-11 6,O <irectory.! $-1-. http(//depts.washington.edu/sao/rso1search.php 2accessed 3ovember 1=, $-1-4. = Dwing, Gern. +ersonal interview. University of Washington, ,chool of Corest 6esources. 3ovember 1A, $-1-.

"ased on current conditions at the University of Washington, we believe that :c*arty 6avine is the most feasible location to focus on for the campusFs first re wilding effort, and offers the most potential for effective improvement of habitat for wildlife. 'his recommendation is based on the reasoning surrounding the three criteria established in ,ection II( (easibility# :c*arty 6avine is not currently used for University gatherings or student functions, and therefore will have the least negative impact on the campus community if re wilded 2i.e. re wilding :c*arty 6avine will not result in taking away a usable public space4 )afety# 6e wilding :c*arty 6avine would not bring additional risk of vagrancy onto central high use campus areas, and therefore would not increase ha8ards to the University of Washington community (easibility# "ecause :c*arty 6avine is not located in a high use area on central campus, it has the greatest potential to provide beneficial habitat to wildlife one re wilded, as animals will be less likely to be directly disrupted by human activity ,hould the University of Washington choose to go forward with the re wilding of :c*arty 6avine, a number of benefits would be reali8ed. +otential monetary benefits can be seenK. 2B6)+5, )3< DL+E)3)'IO3, 5D6D4 In addition to probable financial savings, the University would e#perience an increase in biological diversity. 6ecommended plants, such as black hawthorn, bitter cherry, and red flowering currant will attract butterflies and songbirds, orange honeysuckle will bring hummingbirds, and the removal of ivy will reduce habitat for unwanted pests like rats..

Appendi0
.

Ging *ounty, 3ative +lant Eist.! $--=. http(//green.kingcounty.gov/gonative/+lant.asp#;)ctMlist 2accessed 3ovember 1A, $-1-4. )<< *I')'IO3 '5)' ,5OW, '5)' IIN )''6)*', 6)',

Cigure 1

)<< *)+'IO3/DL+E)3)'IO3 CO6 :)+

Cigure $