holyoutlaw

From late August through December, 2014, I was publishing roughly a chapter a week of my MEH project on Nature Intrudes. I got close to the end but hit a sticking point for some reason. Here, for what it’s worth, is the final chapter of the project, called… wait for it… Conclusion. In fact, this was newly revised this week.

Immediate Plans

This document was originally written in Summer, 2014. At that time, implementation of the WNPS stewardship grant, further monitoring and control of the south plateau street runoff, and monitoring of the 24th ave. wall conduit during a rain event were considered primary.

This revision of the original document is being written in March, 2015. We will look at the plans for 2014 as originally outlined and how they have been carried out. For 2015, we will look at the efforts to date, and project for the rest of the year.

We then look at possible scenarios for 2021 and 2061, ten and fifty years after restoration began, respectively.

The rest of 2014

August

The August work party returned to the areas cleared in January and February to prepare them for planting in November. August work parties are generally the lowest-attended of the year, and there were only three volunteers.

September

The September work party was held in the South Plateau, and included almost twenty students from Seattle Pacific University participating in their “CityQuest” program. We did extensive weeding, mulched some bare areas, and built a couple composting platforms.

October

The October work party featured the first phase of planting for the WNPS stewardship grant. Please see “Stewardship Grant” for details. Working with students from North Seattle College’s iCare program, we planted 450 plugs of obligate wetland, which were 50 each of Carex amplifolia, Deschampsia Caespitosa, and Juncus ensifolius; and 100 each of Carex stipata, Glyceria striata, and Scirpus microcarpus.

November

In November, we executed the first phase of installing the plant provided by Green Seattle Partnership. The work was carried out in the Central Valley, Headwaters Bowl, and the North Slope. We were joined by students from North Seattle College’s iCare program and Circle K International, from the UW.

December

In early December, a large Acer macrophyllum (Big leaf maple) at the base of the North Slope fell across the trail to the Central Valley, landing in areas A and B (see figure below). It blocked access to an area that had been cleared in 2011 and had received heavy planting in the meantime. Luckily, a lot of plants survived the collapse. Enough of the main stem remained standing to create a new snag, and the fallen wood and brush added a lot of woody debris to both the stream and the wetlands.

The tree fell from the North Slope side of the trail across area A (blue) and into area B (red) in this image.

The tree fall created a large gap on the North Slope. Forest stewards removed many holly suckers and shoots from the ground and logged the holly trees for removal. This gap will receive some attention from Natural Area Crews in 2015, focusing on invasive removal, erosion control, and upland planting.

2015

January

The January work party featured the installation of some upland plants into open areas of the South Plateau. We were joined by members of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity from the UW. One forest steward worked on the water channel, creating a meander to help spread the flow across the surface of the plateau.

February

The February work party featured the implementation of the second half of the WNPS stewardship grant. In this case, we were planting facultative wetland trees and shrubs. Doug Gresham (a wetland scientist) helped immensely by sorting the trees and shrubs by where they fell in the gradient from wetland to upland. Although this planting was late in the season, the plants are likely to do well because they are in fairly wet areas of the park.

March

March will have a site review with Parks Department staff and forest stewards to prioritize Natural Area Crew work in the park for 2015. March will also feature Friends of North Beach Park tabling at and participating in Groundswell Northwest’s “Civic Social.” The March work party will feature clearing new areas for the fall planting.

April

In April, Friends of North Beach Park will table at the “Natural Area and Greenbelt Mini Summit Open House,” sponsored by the Parks Department. Some plans to open parks designated as Natural Areas to more active recreation are very controversial. The April work party will again feature clearing new areas for fall planting.

May

We have not previously had a work party in May for a couple reasons: First, it’s the height of nesting season, which is a good reason to stay out of the forest if at all possible. Second, the 4th Saturday schedule puts in in Memorial Day weekend, when many people want to get out of town if at all possible. However, an opportunity presented itself to have a largish group work in the park. We will work in the South Plateau with middle school youth from the “Bureau of Fearless Ideas.” The work will be weeding of quick-seeding annual weeds such as wall lettuce and nipplewort. This will be part one of a two-part writing workshop for the youth, coordinated by Green Seattle Partnership.

June through November

The work done in these months has started to follow a regular pattern: In June and July, we use the stream to water plants located at the rim of the park and other dry areas. August might feature more watering or a return to invasive removal. In September, we again hope to host students from Seattle Pacific University at the South Plateau. October and/or November will feature planting from GSP supplied plants.

2016

The Seattle Metropolitan Parks District comes into being in 2016. Many groups are already meeting to make sure the new funding has a positive impact. Exactly how this will affect forest stewards and Green Seattle Partnership is unclear, although it is likely to increase funding for Natural Area Crews and forest steward resources.

2021

2021 is ten years after the start of restoration. If FoNBP is able to keep working with the same energy and quality of work, it’s likely that all of the volunteer and forest steward-accessible areas of the park will be in at least Phase 1 of restoration, and that all the slopes requiring crew time will have received at least an initial invasive removal.

The existing monocultures will have been eradicated, and forest stewards will work on restoration using methods that avoid disrupting the soil and shrub layer as much as possible. During the early stages of Phase 1 of new restoration, we will introduce a new conifer generation. During the Phase 2 and 3 restoration, we will increase shrub and groundlayer diversity and introduce a new deciduous generation.

Some well-established areas of restoration, such as the South Plateau and the Headwaters Bowl, will be approaching Phase 4. When a restoration site enters Phase 4 restoration, we will introduce a new conifer generation. Please see “Success Metrics” for a discussion of the restoration phases.

On the other hand, NBP loses one to three deciduous trees a year to age and failure. This means that by 2021 we will have lost between 10 and 30 mature deciduous trees, with a consequent enlargement of canopy gaps. These gaps can provide beneficial edge effects, and the greater light levels on the forest floor will stimulate conifer and shrub growth. But the increased light will also make the park more susceptible to sun-loving weeds and grasses. Each fall must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The rate of fall means that removing ivy from trees has to continue to be a priority. A tree with ivy on the trunk and into the canopy that fell into a cleared area would recontaminate it.

2061

This is much more difficult to predict, not least because of the possible effects of climate change. But 50 years is also much longer than the lifespan of a typical “Friends of” group. It would be unrealistically optimistic to suggest that the “Friends of North Beach Park” will have continued in a recognizable form for so long. However, continuing restoration, whether through FoNBP or another agency, is the only prediction I can make.

It’s likely that by 2061 North Beach Park will have a well-established young conifer forest. Surviving conifers that had been planted at the start of restoration will be at the mid-canopy, halfway between the shrub layer and mature trees. The mature canopy is likely to be made up of the few current mature conifers, with some regenerating deciduous trees that are currently at the mid-canopy level. This layer will be much patchier than currently.

Even optimistic scenarios say that the average temperature will be noticeably warmer mid-century than it is now. It is likely the increasing warmth will disrupt existing plant communities. There will be new invasive plants, both from the introduction of new exotic species and plants from southern areas moving north.

If we can maintain enough canopy, the shade and cooling will help mitigate the effects of climate change. The wet, nutrient rich soils will also greatly aid the establishment and survival of the plants installed there, mitigating to some degree the stress of increased temperatures.

I have two optimistic hopes for the future, in regards to North Beach Park. Neither can be considered a “prediction.”

One is that this ravine, and other riparian ravines in Seattle and the lower Puget Trough, will be restored with an eye to becoming refugia, habitats for plants and trees at all forest layers that would otherwise be threatened or endangered by climate change. They might be completely novel ecologies compared to plant communities today, incorporating plants from different ranges.

The other is that socially, I hope that stewardship is seen not as something done for five or even ten years, but is something that one does for one’s entire life, and that it affects all phases of life choices. The forest doesn’t end, why should stewardship?

Mirrored from Nature Intrudes. Please comment over there.

One of the great things that has made the restoration of North Beach Park so successful is the fact that three forest stewards (myself, Tad, and Drexie) have gotten together most Mondays for a couple hours.

We started sometime in late 2011, probably during the research for our Master Forester project. And then we just kept going. It was never an obligation, it was always a choice. Sometimes things would come up for one or another of us, sometimes we’d decide it was too cold or rainy.

But four out of five Mondays for the last three+ years would find us in the park, 10 a.m. to noon. Sometimes there would be something I’d want to do, but as often as not we’d decide on the spot what to do. We’d explore the park, put survival rings around trees, check the progress of some plants, water if necessary, and just do whatever. We did a LOT of work party planning. That meant sometimes meeting at Carkeek to label and sort the GSP plant delivery. A couple times we had coffee meetings at Tad or Drexie’s house. Whatever we did, it was a bright point in the week for me.

You’d think that after exploring a little nine acre park just about once a week for a couple years, you’d know it pretty well. But there was always some new discovery to be made — whether something as drastic as a tree fall (this happens at the rate of three or four a year), a new plant we hadn’t seen before, or just a change in perspective from different seasons or being on a hillside and looking into the park from a new angle.

I’m feeling especially aware of this because in a couple days I start a temp assignment that will keep me from being in the park on Mondays for the next several weeks. And I hope by the time that’s over I have a full time job to step into.

I was going to sprinkle this with pictures from the various Mondays… but I don’t feel like wading through Flickr in the way it would take. Here, go browse around for yourself.

Mirrored from Nature Intrudes. Please comment over there.

Description

Figure 1: The South Slope

North is to the top. (Source: Green Seattle Partnership Reference Map on ArcGIS.com.)

The South Slope is the slope just north of the South Plateau. It connects the main body of the park with the South Plateau. The northern border of the South Slope is the south loop social trail to the west and the Headwaters Bowl to the east. The southern border is a mixture property lines and the South Plateau.

Some trees in the South Slope have received ivy survival rings. There has been some planting at the lower reaches of the east section of the South Slope, along the border to the Headwaters Bowl. Other than that, the South Slope has received little or no attention.

The South Slope is split by a very steep social trail that connects the South Plateau to the rest of the park. During the dry months, this trail is very fragile and breaks into powder. During the rainy months, it is more stable but also more slick. The two sides of the trail also have different water regimes and different levels of invasive species. Because of this, the trail splits the South Slope into two subareas. This is the only HMU subdivision not based on who can do the work.

The lower reaches of Subarea A (Figure 2, below) are accessible to forest stewards. The trailside reaches of Subarea B are accessible to all volunteers. These are very small sections in the South Slope. Because the South Slope has the steepest slopes in the park, the vast majority of it is accessible only to Natural Area Crew.

The South Slope has less than 1% conifer cover and no observed regeneration of any trees. The canopy is mostly Acer macrophyllum, with 75% percent cover.

The target forest type for the South Slope is Tsuga heterophylla – Pseudotsuga menziesii/Polystichum munitum – Dryopteris expansa (Western hemlock – Douglas fir/Sword fern – Spreading wood fern; TSHE-PSME/POMU-DREX). The reference ecosystem is Mesic-moist conifer and conifer-deciduous mixed forest.

Water Flow

Subarea A (Figure 2, below) is above a number of seeps in the Headwaters Bowl that feed into the stream. These seeps flow over gleyed soils. Water and soil movement has been observed in these seeps even in high summer. The slopes above the seeps might receive some attention from the Stewardship Grant, but most attention will focus on the Headwaters Bowl and the Central Valley (as discussed in Stewardship Grant).

Subarea B receives the run off from the South Plateau. It is critical that we explore this area during a heavy rain. There is evidence that the run off from the South Plateau is eroding a section of the south loop social trail and affecting the immediately adjacent section of the Central Valley. How the runoff is affecting the slope, underneath the ivy, needs to be examined. Please see Uplands and Slopes: South Plateau and Water Flow: South Plateau Street Runoff for further discussions of water flow issues affecting the South Slope.

Vegetation

To the west side of the trail (left in the figure below), the South Slope is heavily invaded, with mature Alnus Rubra (Red alder) and Acer Macrophyllum (Big leaf maple) standing above a near-monoculture of Hedera helix (ivy). There is some remnant Polystichum munitum (Sword fern) and a stand of Rubus parviflorus (Thimbleberry).

On the east side of the trail, the section bordering the Headwaters Bowl and the Olympic Terrace properties is less invaded. The canopy mixture is the same, with more sword fern. This area has received some planting during restoration work. There is still a low diversity of native plants.

There has been no systematic plant survey in the South Slope HMU. Table 1, below, lists those plants that have been observed growing there through casual observation or have been planted during restoration activities. It also includes plants listed in the target forest type description but not observed or planted.

Table 1: Vegetation in the South Slope

Key: “1” in Inv column indicates the plant is considered invasive. “1” in TFT column indicates the plant is listed in the Target Forest Type description for the 91st St. Slope. “G” or “R” in the So. Slope column indicates the plant has been observed growing or has been planted as part of restoration activities.

14 plant species have been observed growing in the South Slope HMU. Of these, seven (50%) are invasive. Of the 26 plants listed in the target forest type, five (19%) have been observed growing in the South Slope HMU.

Invasive Removal and Restoration Plan

Figure 2: The South Slope

Subarea A is to the east; Subarea B is to the west.

Subarea A

Subarea A lies between the property lines of Olympic Terrace and the Headwaters Bowl. This means it will be affected by the work done in Subarea D of the Headwaters Bowl. It also lies above the seeps in the HWB that will receive some of the attention of the Stewardship Grant. Work here will have to be coordinated with these other projects.

The northern reaches of Subarea A have received numerous tree and shrub plantings in the last two years. These appear to have established well. Unfortunately, we did not keep accurate records, so we do not have accurate mortality rates.

In the parts of Subarea A that have been explored, there are few invasive plants. The efforts here will be to control what invasiveness is there and add to diversity, particularly at the shrub and groundcover layers.

Suggested Tasks for Subarea A:

• Continue exploration and control of existing invasives. This can be done by forest stewards.
• Monitor plantings for survival and growth. Replenish as necessary. Plant trees for buttressing in the lower sections; above that, plant shrubs for diversity and to maintain view corridors into the park from Olympic Terrace.
• Coordinate work in Subarea A with the Stewardship Grant from the Washington Native Plant Society (HWB Subarea B) and with the homeowners of Olympic Terrace (HWB Subarea D) as necessary.

Subarea B

Trailside reaches of Subarea B are accessible to forest stewards and volunteers. There is a stand of Rubus parviflorus (Thimbleberry) along the trailside that can be spread through berry spreading and live staking.

Suggested Tasks for Subarea B:

• Spread the Rubus parviflorus (Thimbleberry) with a mixture of berries and live stakes.
• Attend to the trailside weeds such as Lapsana communis (nipplewort) and Cicerbita muralis (wall lettuce).
• Subarea B cannot receive crew attention until water control efforts on the South Plateau have improved.

Mirrored from Nature Intrudes. Please comment over there.

#GivingTuesday is a chance to recognize volunteers and change makers at every level, from people working nationally to people working in your neighborhood. Today we ask you to recognize Friends of North Beach Park by making a tax-deductible donation to the Seattle Parks Foundation. Every dollar donated is a strong gesture of support for our efforts. All the money goes directly to the restoration of North Beach Park.

Why should you support Friends of North Beach Park? Here are a few reasons:

By the end of the planting season we’ll have planted well over a thousand plants. We’ve logged hundreds and hundreds of volunteer hours, and moved into new areas of restoration while maintaining previously-restored areas. We started working in the South Plateau again, and will do planting there in January. We’ve worked closely with Parks Department, Forterra, Seattle Public Utilities, and other agencies. We’ve had students from Seattle Pacific University, North Seattle College, Edmonds Community College, and the University of Washington volunteer and study in the park. We’ve had ten work parties, large and small — from more than 20 people to just three. In addition, three lead forest stewards work in the park four Mondays out of five.

We tabled at “Art in the Garden” again and, as ever, enjoyed the weather, food, and the great chance to meet neighbors of the park.

The work of Friends of North Beach Park was recognized by Groundswell NW in bestowing Luke McGuff one of two “Local Hero” awards, for work in sustaining and improving NW Seattle open space. We were also recognized by the Washington Native Plant Society in awarding us a Stewardship Grant of $500, which we have used for purchase of bare-root plants. Last but not least, Luke completed his Master of Environmental Horticulture program at the University of Washington, which resulted in a Restoration Management Plan being posted here chapter by chapter.

All of this work is accomplished by volunteer labor — hundreds, if not thousands, of hours a year. But even so, this work needs money — for purchase of plants, tools, and materials. We’re a small organization, so even a small donation will have a large impact.

Mirrored from Nature Intrudes. Please comment over there.

Description

The South Plateau is an isolated upland with a separate, unofficial entrance. From the main body of the park, it is only accessible via a steep social trail that is slippery in the winter and friable in the summer. If you think of North Beach Park as a boot, the South Plateau is the heel. The floor of the plateau is surrounded by steep, short walls.

The South Plateau, at 25,000 square feet, is also the largest flat area in the park. As explained in “Park and Restoration History,” the South Plateau was intensively cleared in the summer of 2012 by an independent forest steward.

For more than a year, the only work done in the South Plateau was by Parks Department Natural Area Crew. In the summer of 2014, forest stewards watered and did some after care for the plants in June and July, and there was a work party in September.

The South Plateau has less than 1% conifer cover, but at least 75% deciduous cover.

The target forest type for the South Plateau is Tsuga heterophylla – Pseudotsuga menziesii/Polystichum munitum – Dryopteris expansa (Western hemlock – Douglas fir/Sword fern – Spreading wood fern; TSHE-PSME/POMU-DREX). The reference ecosystem is Mesic-moist conifer and conifer-deciduous mixed forest.

Water Flow

During the rainy season, water accumulates from NW 85th St. and 26th Ave NW (310 feet) (all elevations from Seattle DPD GIS map). It runs to the north uninterrupted by any green scape or drainage system the length of 26th Ave. to 88th St., where it turns to the west. Once at 27th Ave., it turns again to the north and enters the park. The floor of the South Plateau is at 250 feet, giving this run about a 5% grade.

Figure 1: Path of water flow into the South Plateau.

The blue line indicates path of water, which flows toward the top of the map, from 85th St. to the South Plateau. (Source: Seattle Department of Public Development DPDGIS map.)

Before clearing, the dense ivy and blackberry cover dissipated a lot of the energy of this water flow, spreading it out over the surface of the plateau. However, invasive removal caused a serious erosion problem was caused.

The Parks Department has installed rip rap and forced meanders into the water flow using plantings and fascines (water barriers made of bundles of salmonberry live stakes).

Figure 2: Water flow in May, 2014

Looking up towards the entrance of the park (the gray rocks in the upper right.) This is from about the middle of the fascines.

There is still some water flow control to be done on the South Plateau, and it will have to be studied during rain events of different sizes during the fall and winter.

Water control can be improved in this area by adding meanders to the downstream end of the storm runoff, maintaining the existing meanders and fascines, and working with the stream to slow it down and let the water percolate through the plateau.

During the summer drought, the South Plateau has no water source. This leads the soil to dry and harden, becoming very compact. Plant establishment is very slow, but improving.

For more recent observations on South Plateau water issues, please see Water Flow: South Plateau Street Runoff.

Vegetation

At the start of restoration, the South Plateau was a mix of Acer macrophyllum (Big leaf maple) and Alnus rubra (red alder), with a shrub layer almost exclusively of Hedera helix (English ivy) and Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan blackberry). Other notable invasives included Lamium galeobdolon (Yellow archangel) and Clematis vitalba (Wild clematis).

There is still a fair amount of remnant and resurgent Hedera helix (ivy). Calystegia sepium (bindweed), Lapsana communis (nipplewort), and Geranium robertianum (herb robert) have also made inroads.

A forest monitoring plot following the Green City protocol was established in the South Plateau in July, 2012, and revisited in August, 2013. Note the difference, in Figures 3 and 4 below, in regenerative invasive trees. This is what happens with overclearing followed by neglect.

Figure 3: Invasive regenerative trees, South Plateau, 2012.

This was the extent of invasive trees in 2012, when the South Plateau was just starting to be cleared. (Source: EarthCorps, 2012)

Figure 4: Invasive regenerative trees, South Plateau, 2013.

The South Plateau was cleared aggressively in 2012 and early 2013, and then neglected.

Invasive Removal and Restoration Plan

Figure 5: South Plateau.

A: Accessible to volunteers. B: Contract or Natural Area Crew. (Source: GSP Reference Map on ArcGIS.com)

Subarea A

Subarea A (outlined in blue in Figure 5, above), at 13,000 square feet, is the largest and driest flat area of the park and the most volunteer friendly. Even though it’s surrounded by Subarea B, it can be accessed by walking carefully down some rip rap. This was the area the independent forest steward and her crew worked in.

The over-clearing followed by neglect has left the South Plateau with a plant community that is still very much out of balance. It’s in better shape than when the ivy and blackberry dominated, but it’s still at risk of an invasive-only plant community.

There is still a lot of invasive removal in Subarea A, including annuals such as Lapsana communis (nipplewort). Subarea A could use a lot of wood mulch, both around the establishing plants, and in large areas of relatively bare ground. In the long term, this would ease the compaction of the soil and aid in plant establishment.

Suggested tasks for Subarea A:

• Mulch around existing plants, and spread mulch to a depth of at least 4” in bare areas of South Plateau.
• Monitor water flow during rain events. Adjust and repair fascines as necessary.
• Add meanders to further reaches of South Plateau. The goal is to slow and spread the water, so it stays on the South Plateau and percolates into the soil.
• Investigate mycelium inoculation as a means of improving soil conditions.
• Forest stewards continue working in South Plateau one day a month for after care and weeding.
• Have two work parties a year (one for planting, one for invasive removal and/or after care).

Subarea B

Subarea B is the walls surrounding the plateau part of the South Plateau. It measures approximately 12,000 square feet. The walls are nearly vertical, making it only available for work by the Parks Department Natural Area Crew. There is a rim of the plateau accessible from 27th Ave NW, but it is so narrow that the best approach is to have the Natural Area Crew work on the rim, and the forest stewards or volunteers do aftercare.

Either the Parks Department Natural Area Crew or the volunteers in the summer of 2012 (or both) have done some work on the western slope. On the eastern and southern slopes of the wall, property lines might be an issue.

Further work on Subarea B will be done by the Parks Department Natural Area Crew. Some of the work could be done at the same time as working on the South or West Slopes (see below).

Suggested tasks for Subarea B:

• Remove resurgent invasives and increase density in cleared areas.
• Remove ivy and put survival rings on trees on the northern edges of the South Plateau.
• Coordinate work on the northern edges of the South Plateau with work done on the South Slope.

References

Department of Planning and Development. 2007. City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development GIS map. http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/maps/dpdgis.aspx (Dates of accession various.)

EarthCorps. 2012. North Beach Park South Plateau Baseline Report. (unpublished document). EarthCorps, Seattle.

EarthCorps. 2013. North Beach Park South Plateau Monitoring Report. (unpublished document). EarthCorps, Seattle.

Green Seattle Partnership, 2014. GSP Reference Map on ArcGIS.com. http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9be9415001144aa383e5b86e481d2c45&extent=-122.5312,47.374,-121.7945,47.7577 (Dates of accession various.)

Mirrored from Nature Intrudes. Please comment over there.

In June of 2014, Friends of North Beach Park received a $500 stewardship grant from the Puget Sound Chapter of the Washington Native Plant Society.

The main body of this chapter was written in summer of 2014. The “Addendum” section, following “Plant List” below, was written in November 2014, after some work had been done.

Purpose of grant

The purpose of the grant is to help rebuild the wetland basins of the park into a scrub-shrub plant community, with trees surrounding the wetlands to stabilize the upland slopes. The planting pallet will follow recommendations for the reference ecosystem, riparian forest and shrubland.

The replanting will be done in phases, using obligate wetland plants to begin holding the soil, followed by reintroducing woody plants to build deeper root structures.

Timeline (projected)

The timeline below was written in summer of 2014.

• September: Invasive removal in the wetlands. This will be done by small groups of forest stewards. Care will be taken not to overclear an area and not to disturb the soil structure too much.
• Early October: installation of obligate wetland plants. This is done just prior to rain return, so the ground is relatively stable. The work will be done by experienced forest stewards.
• Late October: installation of facultative shrubs and woody plants at the wetland borders. This work can be done by volunteers during a regular Friends of North Beach Park work party.

For the timeline as the project is being executed, please see “Addendum,” below.

Plan

The work will be centered on the social trail dividing Headwaters Bowl Subarea B and Central Valley Subarea B. See Figure 1, below.

Figure 1: Area of work for the Stewardship Grant.

The projected work area for the WNPS Stewardship Grant.

The stream will be the northern boundary. In the Central Valley, the southern boundary will be the south loop social trail. In the Headwaters Bowl, the southern boundary will be the wetland border established by Doug Gresham in 2011. This is the entire area referred to as “Central Valley Subarea B” and the western edge of the area referred to as “Headwaters Bowl Subarea B.” The actual work area will be smaller than illustrated above.

The planting is intended to increase diversity and density in three locations:

• Mixture of shrub and herbaceous plants streamside.
• Herbaceous plants in seeps.
• Shrubs at the toe of the slopes, above the seeps.

Headwaters Bowl Subarea B

Streamside

The substrate of the stream in this location is mostly silt and fine sand, with occasional patches of small cobbles where the channel has narrowed.

There is a large Thuja plicata (Western red-cedar) stump in the stream, covered with moss and hosting numerous Vaccinium parvifolium (Red huckleberry). This could host some Cornus canadensis (Canadian dwarf dogwood) but would be unlikely to support Tsuga heterophylla (Western hemlock).

Plants already growing streamside (based on a visual survey):

• Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry)
• Lysichiton americanum (Skunk cabbage)
• Oenanthe sarmentosa (Water parsley)
• Carex amplifolia (Broad-leafed sedge)
• Polystichum munitum (Sword fern)
• Athyrium filix femina (Lady fern)
• Urtica dioica (Stinging nettle)
• Sambucus racemosa (Red elderberry)
• Tolmeia menziesii (Piggyback)
• Cardamine hirsuta (Shotweed)
• Lonicera involucrata (Twinberry)

Above the stream

About five feet above the stream, there is a nurse log and a large amount of coarse woody debris holding the stream bank. I think the seep is eroding the soil from underneath the CWD, and it will eventually collapse. Upland of this the substrate is mostly decayed wood, which makes it a good place for Tsuga heterophylla. On either side of this substrate, the seeps reach to the wall of the ravine.

Growing in this area:

• Polystichum munitum (Sword fern)
• Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry)
• Ilex aquifolium (Holly)
• Hydrophyllum tenuipes (Pacific waterleaf)
• Tolmeia menziesii (Piggyback)
• Sambucus racemosa (Red elderberry)
• Ribes bracteosum (Stink currant)
• Spiraea douglasii (Douglas’ spirea)
• Germanium robertianum (Herb robert)

Growing in the seep between the CWD area and the social trail:

• Tolmeia menziesii (Piggyback)
• Glyceria elata (Tall mannagrass)
• Oenanthe sarmentosa (Water parsley)
• Hydrophyllum tenuipes (Pacific waterleaf)
• Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry) in dryer areas
• Thuja plicata (Western red-cedar) (planted)
• Cardamine hursuta (shotweed)

Central Valley Subarea B

Streamside

The stream itself is similar to the stream in HWB Subarea B: The wider sections have a substrate of sand and fine silt, and with narrower sections have a substrate of small cobbles.

The red cedar stump in this section has a wider variety of plants than the one in the HWB section. In addition to the red huckleberry and mosses, there are also salmonberry and a Tsuga heterophylla (Western hemlock) seedling that is naturally regenerating.

Above the Stream

There is also a nurse log holding the bank, but there is not the woody debris substrate above it as with the HWB.

Salmonberry and red elderberry form a thicker canopy than on the HWB side. There is also much more Hedera helix (English ivy) that comes down from the South Slope and lies across the seeps.

In the stream, but closer to the right bank, is a red alder root ball, with the tree itself lying across the width of the seep. The root ball has red huckleberry, ivy, and a couple Acer macrophyllum (Big leaf maple) seedlings growing in it. There is holly in the stream and around the root ball that will need to be removed.

Integrating into Work Flow

Between Sept. 15 and Nov. 27, there are nine possible Monday sessions and the October work party. The September work party will be on the South Plateau, and the November work party will be dedicated to planting GSP-provided plants. It is possible that some work on the stewardship grant could take place at the November work party.

Plant list

Table 1, below, is the plant list submitted to the WNPS for the grant. The actual planting list will vary considerably from this list, but that variance is within the scope of the grant. The wetland status, size, and number were obtained from the Fourth Corner Nurseries Catalog.

Table 1: Plant list and estimated planting time.

OBL = obligate, plant has to grow in a wetland; FACW = facultative wetland, plant grows in a wetland most of the time but can occasionally be found in drier areas; FAC = facultative, plant grows equally well in wetlands and drier areas; FACU = facultative upland, plants grows mostly in drier areas, but can occasionally be found in wetlands.

For the purchased plant list and the actual planting times, please see “Addendum,” below.

Addendum

This is the revised timeline, written after some work had already been done.

• Plants were ordered in October for October and February delivery.
• The October plants were wetland obligate graminoids.
• The February plants were facultative wetland shrubs and trees.
• The plants will be installed during regular public work parties.

In October 2014, the following orders were placed with Fourth Corner Nursery, for delivery in October and February.

Table 2: October order of Obligate plants.

1 = observed growing with limited distribution; 2 = introduced to North Beach Park with this planting; 3 = previously introduced by restoration planting.

Table 3: February order of Facultative Wetland Shrubs and Trees.

1 = observed growing with limited distribution; 2 = introduced to North Beach Park with this planting; 3 = previously introduced by restoration planting.

The October order is the actual quantities delivered and planted during the October work party. As discussed above, the work occurred in the Central Valley Subarea B and Headwaters Bowl Subarea B.

The planting was done by volunteers led by forest stewards. Duckboards were used to minimize disruption to the wetlands wherever possible.

The work area actually became larger than illustrated in Figure 1, above. Planting was done further east in Headwaters Bowl.

The second order will be delivered in time for the February work party (February 28, 2015). Approximately ten of each shrub will be held back for a year or so, to test is survival rates are increased with an extra year of nursery care.

The second planting will also happen further east than the original prospect in Figure 1.

Mirrored from Nature Intrudes. Please comment over there.

I am a forest steward with Green Seattle Partnership since 2011. I am also a regular voter, and have voted for everyone on the City Council.

English ivy is a serious problem in Seattle. It’s taking over our forests, preventing regeneration of seedlings and shortening the lives of our mature trees. It’s epidemic throughout our park system. With no action taken, it will seriously degrade our parks and make them not only unusable for people, but destroy their ability to provide many of the ecological services parks provide.
Unfortunately, the most effective way to remove ivy is by hand. This makes it prohibitively expensive to control – unless you have a large pool of dedicated volunteers, and a large organization that can provide city-wide logistical and material support.

Green Seattle Partnership forest stewards are that pool of volunteers. They provide hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of volunteer labor annually. The Green Seattle Partnership is that organization. It provides tools, training, resources, outreach assistance, and coordination of logistics. It helps avoid duplication of effort, and makes sure we’re all working towards the same goal with the same tools and techniques.

My work is concentrated in North Beach Park, a 9-acre ravine park in Northwest Seattle. Green Seattle Partnership was there from the start. We’re now entering our fourth year of restoration. More than 20% of the park has been cleared of invasive plants, and a couple thousand trees, shrubs, and groundcover plants have been planted. North Beach Park has become an education resource for everyone from elementary students in the school across the street to UW students in the Master of Environmental Horticulture program. It has become a source of community and friendship to the regular volunteers and those who drop in just once or twice. These work parties provide an important contact to local nature, and help to instill and improve our sense of place.

Multiply this across the city, from the largest to the smallest natural area, and you can see the tremendous impact that the Green Seattle Partnership has on Seattle.

As we remove invasive monocultures and restore native diversity, we’re doing more than making the parks prettier for the human users. We’re providing resources for all wild life, from larvae through adult insects and the birds that eat them. We’re improving the ecological services that the urban forest provides: the stormwater retention, the erosion control, and the water purification. We’re bringing back iconic plants, such as the Western Red Cedar, the Douglas-fir (and the more humble but no less iconic low Oregon-grape and Western skunk cabbage) – plants that say “this is the Pacific Northwest.”

To pay for all this work directly would cost many times the request of Green Seattle Partnership in the proposed Parks budget. This is why I say that the Green Seattle Partnership is not a luxury but a necessity, not a liability but a valid and rewarding investment.

Please restore the Green Seattle Partnership funding to the proposed parks budget.

Thank you for your time. I’m more than happy to answer any questions you might have.

Mirrored from Nature Intrudes. Please comment over there.

Two of the other forest stewards and I were planning 2014 (the planning was fun and we’re looking forward to the activities), and the question of plant diversity came up. How much had we increased native plant diversity in North Beach Park? We had a couple plant lists handy, and were quickly able to come up with a pretty good idea. Other than the first order (made in 2011, before I barely knew anything), we’ve concentrated on ordering plants we knew to be under- or unrepresented in the park. Once I got home, I looked through previous lists and came up with a pretty definite figure.

But first, why does increased native plant diversity matter? It’s such a mantra for forest stewards the question deserves to be asked.

• It provides more food sources for the creatures that eat plants. That’s, basically, everything else. If a creature doesn’t eat plants directly, it eats things that eat plants. More insects eating plants means (we hope) more birds eating insects. Invasive plants don’t provide food for insects that eat plants, which is why native diversity is important.
• It also increases the length of the bloom season. Particularly helpful are plants that bloom early in spring or late in summer.
• The greater variety of food sources and extended bloom time are examples of functional redundancy. There isn’t just one plant blooming, but several, which serve different pollinators. And there isn’t just one genus of wetland plant filtering the water, but three or four.
• It improves the soil structure with a diversity of roots. Plants taking water from the soil and releasing it through their leaves (evapotranspiration) is important to soil stabilization. And a variety of root structures will make the soil more lively, which will feedback and make the soil better for the root structures.
• The Pacific Northwest forests need plants at every canopy level — from ground covering forbs and ferns up to the tallest Douglas fir trees. Because (see first item) there are things that eat plants at every level.
• Many of the forest types we target in our restoration have similar plant communities and associations, with the main difference being proportions between the plants. Planting with as wide a palette as possible provides the opportunity for the plants to sort themselves out a bit.
• Plant diversity also builds in resilience to disturbances, whether fire, flood, famine, or climate change. And given that we work in a ravine, we could well be creating a refuge for many plants to escape the worst effects of climate change.

I’m sure there are more reasons, but this is what I can think of off the top of my head.

Oh, the statistics. We — the people engaged in restoration in North Beach Park, whether EarthCorps, a crew contracted by the Parks Department, or people working with Friends of North Beach Park — have planted 63 different species of plant in the park. Of these, 39, or 62%, were unrepresented in the park. Note that these aren’t necessarily rare plants, they’re just unrepresented in North Beach Park. And I’m not saying we’ve increased the diversity by that much. That would need a complete survey of all the plants in the park, native and invasive. But it’s still a fairly good number.

Mirrored from Nature Intrudes. Please comment over there.

Last week I attended a lecture on this topic given by Dr. Steven Handel of Rutgers University. In his time as a restoration ecologist, he’s worked on some big projects, including the Brooklyn Bridge Park, Fresh Kills Park, and the Orange County Great Park, in CA.

Dr. Handel talking at Fresh Kills Park in 2010.

All these sites presented unique situations, plant palettes, climates, and microclimates.

But they all had one dream: Restoring a highly degraded site to ecological function and services. And they all had so much glass on site that Handel and his students felt like they were planting in vitro. (Kind of a joke.)

The dream of restoring a degraded site to ecological function and services is common to everyone who works as a forest steward or practices some form of ecological restoration. The specific aspects of the restoration — getting plants, improving conditions, adapting plans, securing funding, working with stakeholders, effects of land-use changes outside the work site — is where the nightmares come in.

The first question he dealt with is “how far back do you go?” Every restoration project has to ask this question on some level. For North America, it’s a relatively simple question: we try to restore to a state before European contact, as best we can reconstruct it. But there’s no true “going back.” In the Northwest, beaver hunters had extirpated local beaver populations (drastically affecting hydrology) before there was any systematic biology. Before the beaver hunters, smallpox and other European diseases wiped out the majority of Native American populations. In the course of those events, plant and wild life communities that had been stable for perhaps hundreds of years were disrupted.

Luckily for us in the Pacific Northwest, there are still some relatively intact areas where we can get an idea of what goes with what in our projects. But we still can’t recreate exactly what was here before, and to some degree, shouldn’t even try.

The main goal Dr. Handel suggests is the restoration of self-sustaining ecological services: food for birds and wild life; a more-natural hydrology (another speaker I saw last year pointed out that cities are built on watersheds but designed as sewers); self-sustaining plant life that can suppress weedy invasives.

Full restoration is often affected by land use changes outside the project area. Sometimes this is positive: for an early project, Dr. Handel managed to get topsoil from a Manhattan construction site and compost from Teaneck, NJ. The soil on site was basically dead from compaction and lack of biotic processes. Without the topsoil and compost, the project would have been much less successful and taken longer.

Another surprising interaction for this project was pollinator visits. Handel’s team measured pollinator visits to the nearby clumps of plants, and as expected, those clumps located closest to the woodland and other stands got more visits from pollinators, with number of visits lessening as the distance increased. But then, there was a large spike in pollinator visits very far from anything other than other nearby restoration sites. What could be causing that?

Part of the landfill had failed and was degraded to bare soil. An engineering failure, but a boon to native ground-nesting solitary bees. The engineers wanted to repair the failure, of course, but Handel convinced them to install raised beds of bare dirt to preserve the nesting habitat.

Sometimes the interaction is not positive: That same project had great seed dispersal by birds, much higher than expected… until an adjacent woodland was cut down for a strip mall. Then bird seed-dispersal plummeted.

This same thing could happen in Seattle or anywhere. Nearby unprotected lands might be contributing to the success of our projects and we have to be aware of the repercussions if they’re redeveloped. As Seattle redevelops to increase density, with resulting canopy loss, our natural areas and the connections between them become even more important.

Is it worth it? Yes. Along with the functioning ecology comes many services that have calculable economic benefits: stormwater retention and filtration, habitat corridors, and increased local contact with nature among them. The projects help develop a sense of place, as we get our hands in the dirt. We learn about the processes of the immediate world around us. Not the processes we impose with exotic ornamentals in our gardens, but the true seasonal cycle of flower blooms, birds nesting, butterflies and beetles pollinating, and more.

The lecture was given to an audience mostly composed of Landscape Architecture students, although there were a couple other forest stewards from GSP and other MEH students there. Dr. Handel’s suggestion to us was to be naturalists — to know about wild life and hydrologic cycles as well as plants.

Another suggestion: Make sure you secure funding. The aftercare of a project is continuous. The forest doesn’t end, neither does stewardship. If it’s possible to have a continuing organization, or a funded conservancy, that would be extremely important. His example was a luxury condo built on Brooklyn Bridge Park with a view of lower Manhattan. It takes one acre out of a large park, but funds the entire park in perpetuity. I don’t think I’ll build a condo in North Beach Park, but funding and aftercare are something to keep in mind.

Handel’s talk made me feel a little optimistic and relieved. Relieved because even though North Beach Park was something of a wreck, it’s not nearly as degraded as any of the sites Handel has had to work on. (I don’t think any site in Seattle outside of the Duwamish superfund area is.)

Optimistic because the sight of his projects at their initial planting and a couple decades later, looking like “natural” woodlands, made me want to see North Beach Park in about 30 years.

I found a recording of a talk Dr. Handel gave in 2010 to the Fresh Kills Park organization. It’s basically the same talk, with some minor differences. Here is the link. You miss the slides, but his words are all there.

Mirrored from Nature Intrudes. Please comment over there.

Douglas W. Tallamy

Note: I read a library copy of the hardcover published in 2007. The link above is to a revised trade paperback edition, with an expanded resource section and updated photographs.

“Bringing Nature Home” thoroughly covers all aspects of how and why to use native plants in a home garden. The problem with alien plants is simple: they disrupt the food web by being inedible to insect herbivores. Insects have specialized gut bacteria and enzymes that neutralize (or even utilize) the defenses of their native plants. Some can only eat a single type of plant. When supplies of native plants are replaced by alien plants, the insects starve. This ripples through the food web, as most birds feed their nestlings insects, which have the highest dose of fat and protein and provide the best energy resource.

With no insects eating native plants, there are no insects for the birds to eat, resulting in fewer birds. The larval forms of many butterflies and moths need native plants for survival as well. Their adult form may be generalist enough to get pollen from nonnative species, but if their larval forms have no food, there will be no adults.

Tallamy provides a table towards the end of the book showing that even if an alien plant was introduced a couple hundred years ago, it still provides little or no food or resources to native insects. A few species might have made a transition to the new plant, but the native will host dozens more. In a few cases, an alien plant is close enough to a native that the insects can eat with no problem. But again, insects get more benefit from the native plant, and not all species hosted by the native can transition to the alien.

By reintroducing native plants into the home garden, we provide food for the insects and the birds that eat them. The chapter “What Should I Plant?” addresses this. Because this book is written for a national audience, the advice has to be very general. Tallamy focuses on trees of especial benefit to Lepidoptera because butterflies and moths are charismatic and attractive to people.

The original publication of this book in 2007 sparked a great conversation about gardening with natives. There is now a website, plantanative.com, that provides links to native plant societies, suggestions about what to plant, and more. Nowadays there are numerous books, organizations, and websites about using native plants. This interest was sparked in part by the earlier publication of “Bringing Nature Home.” There is still a long way to go, but progress is being made.

Two good resources for this area are the Washington Native Plant Society, and Landscaping for Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest, which I’ll look at soon.

Mirrored from Nature Intrudes. Please comment over there.