As-BuiltReport_RavennaRavine

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT SUMMARY
Pre-Restoration Description
Ecological Concern
Project Objectives
General Approach
Major Accomplishments
Team Contact Information
Acknowledgements
AS-BUILT REPORT
Background
Site Description
Location
History
Description
Restoration Needs and Opportunities
Tasks and Approaches
Specific Work Plans
Site Preparation
Current Conditions
Site Preparation Activities
Logistical Considerations
Planting Plan
Materials Table
Plant Species Table
Budget Plan
Labor Budget
Monetary Budget
Work Timeline
Design for the Future
Appendix A

2
PROJECT SUMMARY
The 2015-2016 UW-REN Ravenna Ravine restoration site is located at the heart of
Ravenna Park at the edge of the University District area in Seattle. The site covers about 100
square meters and is located off the north trail in Ravenna Park. It is situated between a site
that has already undergone restoration from a previous UW-REN capstone project and a site
that will still need restoration in the future. Ann Stevens is the Program Coordinator for Friends
of Ravenna Ravine and she worked as our Community Partner throughout the restoration
process. Her immense knowledge and familiarity with the site was a valuable resource during
the eight month restoration and she was an active member at the site.
Before (November 2015)
After (May 2016)
Pre-Restoration Description
This year’s Ravenna site is bordered by the east and west by past UWREN sites. The
2015-2016 site covers about 1000 square meters and is composed of steep slopes of various
patches of wet and dry soils year round. Based on hydrology, soil structure, and vegetation on
the existing plot, this site was divided into four polygons by our restoration team. While this
site is mainly composed of native plants there are a number of non-native plants that are
beginning to take over the site. The soil in our site is largely influenced by its location on the
ravine slope and the density of plants and trees to take up moisture. The bottom of the site
includes a year-round stream with a small area that is permanently wet which made it an
inviting place for invasives to grow.

3
Before restoration, canopy cover throughout the site was primarily Bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum), Western redcedar (Thuja plicata), and Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana), The
understory layer was dominated by salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and horsetail (Equisetum
arvense). Groundcover plants are mostly invasives like himalayan blackberry (R. armeniacus),
English ivy (Hedera helix), and morning glory (Calystegia sepium), with reed canary grass
(Phalaris arundinacea) and small-flowered bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) dominating the lower
portion of the site (Pojar & Mackinnon, 2004).
Ecological Concern
The primary ecological concern with the site was the forest’s inability to advance toward
the desired Tsuga heterophylla-Thuja plicata (THSE-THPL) forest succession. The non-native
species, which was mostly composed of himalayan blackberry (R. armeniacus), English ivy
(Hedera helix), and bindweed (Calystegia sepium), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)
were the main contributing factors as to why the landscape could not reach its optimal
outcome. The previous existing conditions of the site starting off as a predominantly exotic
plant coverage outcompeted any desirable species. There are many parts within the site with
minimal canopy cover which allows invasive species that enjoy sunlight to thrive and establish
themselves over other species on site which makes the likelihood of autogenic repair very
unlikely. Due to the pre-existing nature of the plot, human intervention and restoration was
very necessary in order to achieve the desired THSE-THPL landscape.
Project Objectives
● Increase biodiversity within the site while focusing on native plants.
● Develop a mixed conifer forest habitat that promotes a healthy ecosystem
bordering the Ravenna Creek.
● Remove the invasive species that are crowding out natives and using up
necessary nutrients on current and previous UW-REN Capstone sites.
● Create conditions that will help to shade out invasives that depend on full
sunlight by planting vegetation that grows quickly and offers a lot of canopy.
General Approach
The first task in completing restoration was the initial removal of invasive species. The
Himalayan blackberry, english ivy and bindweed were the most prominent in the removal
process which was continual throughout the duration of the project. Due to the steep
topographical nature of the site, some sort of site stability was also in order. Fascines were
constructed out of live stakes consisting of a combination of red osier dogwood and ninebark.
These were installed in strategic locations that both helped stabilize sensitive areas of the

4
slopes as well as begin to shade out any unwanted species. The main approach for dealing with
reed canary grass was the process of shading out using fast-growing shrub species like ninebark
and red osier dogwood in order to deprive invasive species of desirable conditions. The desired
mixed conifer forest is achieved through a diverse range of species which encourages
biodiversity with a focus on native plants and promotion of a healthy ecosystem.
The willow species as well as the black cottonwood would be provided to take on the
role of fast-growing species and help increase the total amount of shade our site experiences
during the spring and summer. These species will also be used to help control erosion and slow
water runoff throughout the site. The conifers we will be adding, namely western redcedar and
western hemlock, will be planted to help move the site into a more mixed-conifer habitat,
integrating our site into the larger Ravenna Park habitat. These trees will also provide food and
shelter along with other natives like red osier dogwood, ninebark, and vine maple.
The intent of the project was to create a well organized yet organic experience for the
Ravenna Park area. Focus towards aesthetically pleasing plants that also serve the functions and
needs of the site were carefully selected and installed to achieve the goals of the restoration team
and the community partners of Seattle Parks and Recreation and Friends of Ravenna Ravine.
Major Accomplishments
● Our team restored a section of 1,070 square meters of Ravenna Ravine that borders the
Ravenna Creek
● In total, we planted a total of 420 plants, including 34 conifers, 240 deciduous trees, and
146 shrubs
● At least 70% of our willow live stakes established successfully, many of which were
planted with the help of dedicated volunteers
● We successfully installed three fascines composed of willows, red osier dogwood, and
pacific ninebark live stakes to improve slope stabilization while decreasing erosion
● A total of 86 plants were donated from our community partner, Ann Stevens
● During our largest work party we had a total of 15 volunteers from the Alpha Phi Omega
National Service Fraternity who aided in invasive removal spanning three Ravenna
Ravine restoration sites - ours, and the two previous years’ sites, for a total of about
3,210 square meters

5
Team Contact Information
○ Sara Emrick - sara_emrick@nps.gov | sara.emrick@gmail.com
○ Victor Jackson - uwvjacks21@gmail.com
○ Alice Tsoodle- alicemorningstar@gmail.com
○ Conrad Meinhold - conrad.meinhold@gmail.com
○ Hollie Pope - holliempope@gmail.com
○ Arthur Ung - ungsarthur@gmail.com
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all those who took time to help us carry our this project and
teach us about the intricacies of restoration design. We greatly appreciate all of your hard work
this past year!
● Ann Stevens, our primary Community Partner and co-founder of the Friends of Ravenna
group, for donating countless plants to our cause while providing helpful information
throughout the process.
● George Macomber, co-founder of the Friends of Ravenna group, for donating plants and
providing helpful insight about the ecosystem of Ravenna Ravine.
● Lisa Ciecko and Bob Baines from Seattle Parks and Recreation for advising our site and
offering specialized information about City Parks.
● Our knowledgeable and patient instructors: Professor Kern Ewing, Professor Jim Fridley,
Professor Warren Gold, Professor Carleen Weebers, and Professor Cynthia Updegrave as
they guided us through this process.
● A special thanks to our hard-working and kind teaching assistant Kat Cerny-Chipman for
her endless patience and advice.
● The service fraternity Alphi Phi Omega for their hard work removing invasive species.
● All of the friends and family of the team members who volunteered their time to
remove invasives and install native plants without a single complaint the entire year.

7
F
Figure 2: Our restoration site within Ravenna Ravine Image created by: Conrad Meinhold
on GIS and Adobe Photoshop.
Figure 1: Ravenna Ravine location. Relative to the University of
Washington’s campus.
Image created by: Conrad Meinhold on GIS and Adobe Photoshop.
BACKGROUND
Site Description
Location
The 2015-2016 UW-REN Ravenna Ravine restoration site is located
at the heart of Ravenna Park at the edge of the University District
area in Seattle. The site covers about 100 square meters and is
located off the north trail in Ravenna Park. It is situated between a
site that has already undergone restoration from a previous UW-
REN capstone project and a site that will still need restoration in
the future.

History
Ravenna Park is a survivor of Seattle’s logging boom, but thankfully escaped logging in the late
1800’s. It formally opened in 1887 as a privately operated destination. The Ravine’s hydrology is
directly connected to Greenlake, which was the physical vestige of the Vashon Ice Sheet around
50,000 years ago. The area was once a site for a Native American village, whose population
depended on the Coho salmon and cutthroat trout that ran through the Ravenna Creek

8
As the pioneer settlers of Seattle began moving in, claims for land disrupted the existing villages
of Seattle. Real estate along Elliott Bay was quickly inundated by these settlers until they
eventually began making claims near the ravine. As the logging industry continued to grow,
land around the ravine was being picked off and used for resources. The steep slopes and
topography of the ravine, however, proved to be too difficult for logging to occur in the area,
resulting in extended protection of the existing old growth. Yet, the trees were eventually
logged later and no old growth remains in the site.
In 1989, William Wirt Beck along with his wife Louise Coman Beck, invested in the 400 acre
parcel on the north side of Union Bay. From here, they envisioned the entire town of Ravenna.
The first time the Beck’s offered to sell the park to the city was in 1904 for the asking price of
$150,000. The city rejected their offer. In 1909, the city began getting involved in planning the
Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition, which would take place on the University of Washington
grounds. The Beck’s thought their park would be a nice place for visitors to visit to experience
and relax in the shady ravine and offered to sell it to the city again, however, the city declined
once more. In 1910, the couple went on a trip to Ravenna, Italy. Later during this year, the city
of Seattle would somehow condemn the couple’s park for what the court determined the fair
market price of $144,920.

Water used to come from three lakes in watershed that ended in the ravine. When the city
tried to daylight the creek upstream in Cowen, no water came. The water that now runs
through the ravine is no longer part of the watershed, but spring water coming from within
Cowen and Ravenna park but still has relatively dense vegetation, creating a somewhat
secluded and wooded ravine. The city gained possession of the park in 1911 but in the 1920’s
the Parks began cutting the large trees on site. In the 1930’s, the public successfully convinced
the city to get playfields in the southern edge of the park. Currently, the park is used mostly by
people who enjoy the walking trails, softball fields, picnic areas, and playgrounds that the park
has to offer. Today, the site is part of Seattle Parks and Recreation and a community group
under the name of Friends of Ravenna Ravine, protects the site with restoration efforts.

Description
Our site is located between the Ravenna Creek and the bottom of the steep northern slope of
the park. It is a muddy wetland with drier hills and more saturated flat areas. The top of the site
has a downward slope with muddy trenches, and is also characterized by several fallen trees.
There is a fairly steep slope in the middle of the site that has a 19.7º incline. While this is well
below the threshold that would limit restoration efforts, safety precautions should be taken in

9
Figure 3: Dimensions of restoration site.
Image created by: Conrad Meinhold
on GIS and Adobe Photoshop.
regards to work being done in this area. The bottom of the site flattens out in front of the
creek, this area is highly muddy and can be subject to pooling.
The sites hydrology can be summed up by water accumulation from
the trail, as well as underground water from that area appearing in
the ravine. The water pools around the fallen logs at the top of the
site, and then makes it’s way around the sides of the steep face by
traveling in small pockets on the left, and larger streams on the right.
The water comes together at the bottom of the hill to form the
muddy banks of the creek, which then feeds into the gently flowing
water situated just below the bottom of the site. The water of the
creek is made up of runoff from within the park.

The dimensions to the site are as follows: the side facing the
previous restoration site is 193 feet, the length opposite that
side is 162 feet, the side nearest the trail is 33 feet, and the
side down by the creek is 105 feet. This gives a total area of
around 1,000 square meters. Overall, there will need to be a
large amount of non-native plants removed and native
vegetation planted in its place.
Restoration Needs and Opportunities
This particular site is in need of restoration because the present vegetation does not currently
fall in line with Friends of Ravenna and Seattle Parks’ desired structure. Both parties have
expressed interest in a forested park that is mostly composed of native conifer trees and a well-
established native understory layer. We will set the site up during our restoration so that it will
later support a mixed-conifer forest, however, this won’t be possible without creating a plan to
remove and manage the increasing prevalence of invasive species, such as himalayan
blackberry (R. armeniacus), morning glory (C. sepium), and English ivy (H. helix), which out
compete native vegetation for resources and space. We will be planting a variety of quick
growing plants to shade out invasive species growing along the stream.
While our main focus is to remove invasives and install desirable species, an outcome of doing
so will be improved habitat spaces for small animals like birds, and an assortment of aquatic
species. In summary, we hope to help develop our site in a way that it is directed toward
developing into a mixed conifer-deciduous forest of native Washington species, so those who
visit Ravenna Ravine will be able to enjoy the natural beauty that Seattle has to offer.

10
Tasks and Approaches
Goal 1: Promote the establishment of diverse native vegetation typical of low elevation Puget
Sound area riparian zones in the Ravenna Ravine.
Objective 1-1: Increase biodiversity within the site while focusing on native plants.
Task 1-1 a: Determine which native plants will thrive in this environment and
plant many types of native vegetation in the site.
Approach: Using native plants within the area such as red osier dogwood
through live staking from off and on-site resources.
AD1: Red osier dogwood was not used. Also, due to ease of access and availability, we used
willow from Yesler Swamp and ninebark from Magnuson Park instead of live stakes from
within Ravenna.
Approach justification: the willows, alder, and dogwood species will be
very effective for our site due to our convenient accessibility to the
species as well as the fact that they are easy to plant through staking.
This will give volunteers an opportunity to plant something that is
satisfying yet easy to learn and do properly.
Task 1-1 b: Remove invasive plants that pose a threat to the survival of desired
natives.
AD2: In addition to the removal of invasive non-native species, we ended up needing to
control the growth of aggressive native species such as horsetail and skunk cabbage.
Approach: Physical removal of most encountered invasive species.
Approach justification: By removing invasives, we will provide space for
the desired plants to grow into and keep them from being overrun by the
the aggressive invasives.
Objective 1-2: Develop a mixed conifer forest habitat that promotes a healthy
ecosystem bordering the Ravenna Creek.
Task 1-2 a: Determine the plant association we want our site to reach in the next
10-50 years.
Approach: Use planting plan and pre-selected plant palette as supporting
document. Delegate plants to volunteers to give them an opportunity to
plant native species to support the ecosystem of Ravenna Creek.
AD3: Due to many volunteers being unfamiliar with restoration and plants, many of our
plants were planted in locations where they could not survive by volunteers, which was the
leading cause for plant mortality on our site.

11
Approach justification: Biodiversity is a crucial element to healthy and
successful ecosystems. The biodiversity also falls in line of the goals and
desires of the Seattle Parks and Friends of Ravenna groups.
Goal 2: Decrease the prevalence of invasive species that are detrimental to the survival of
native species.
Objective 2-1: Remove the invasive species that are crowding out natives and using up
necessary nutrients on current and previous UW-REN Capstone sites.
Task 2-1 a: Use plants for long-term invasive suppression.
Approach: Shading out invasive species using fast-growing natives like
Salix species.
Approach justification: Shading out invasive species is an ecologically
responsible way of removing unwanted plants. This method is also very
practical in the sense of minimal physical labor outside of planting new
species.
Task 2-1 b: Apply immediate invasive removal to provide space for restoration
plants.
Approach: Remove invasives, such as Himalayan Blackberry and English
Ivy, through physical labor.
Approach justification: For getting tough species such as blackberry, the
most efficient method is to approach the problem with shovels and
gloves. Although this method does include the issue of disturbing soils
and its microbial ecology through digging, it is still the best practice
compared to the alternative of removal through chemicals, especially
given the fact that our restoration site rests above a stream. Invasive
removal also presents an opportunity to allow volunteers from the
community an opportunity to learn about restoration projects as well as
native and invasive Pacific Northwest plants.
Objective 2-2: Create conditions that will help to shade out invasives that depend on full
sunlight by planting vegetation that grows quickly and offers a lot of canopy.
Task 2-2 a: Create an immediate and short-term source of shade for the site.
Approach: Install fast-growing shady species (that will quickly provide
shade to the site in order to suppress invasive species immediately)

12
Figure : Diagram showing division of
site by polygon
Figure 4: Diagram showing the division of site into 4 polygons
Approach justification: Using rapidly growing shady species is the least
intrusive method of invasive removal that would not require much more
care outside of initial planting
Task 2-2 b: Create a long-term source of shade for the site.
Approach: Install slower-growing conifers.
Approach justification: Having the slow growing conifers provide long
term shade will help ensure that they continue to shade out any invasive
species. A mixed-conifer forest also falls in line toward the ideal
conditions of Seattle Parks and Recreation as well as Friends of Ravenna.
SPECIFIC WORK PLANS
Site Preparation
Current Conditions
Our site is broken into four polygons based on topography,
vegetation, hydrology and physical boundaries. Polygons are useful
to our restoration efforts because they help us identify areas with
the same physical conditions that need work done. We can divide
work according to these boundaries and find solutions that will be
fitting for the exact conditions of the polygon rather than a general
whole-site appropriate method.
Our first polygon borders the northeastern perimeter of our site.
We see heavy saturation in this section because water pools and
collects in depressions made by a fallen tree. Most of this area is
comprised of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and horsetail
(Equisteum arvense). Along with these understory plants, we also
see the majority of our willow trees (Salix spp.s), red alders (Alnus
rubra), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and Oregon ash
(Fraxinus latifolia), creating our canopy layer. Currently we have
virtually no canopy cover, however, we would expect a small
amount of canopy cover coming from the willows after winter. This polygon receives the
second largest amount of sunlight within our site which contributes to our abundance of exotic
species in the polygon.

13
Polygon 2 is the central area of our site. It is relatively flat and more elevated than the other
polygons. We also see the most tree coverage (about 85% canopy cover) in this section, coming
from the pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis), blue spruce (Picea sitchensis), western redcedar
(Thuja plicata), and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia). There are also many types of understory
vegetation, including salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), horsetail (Equisteum arvense), himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium) and English holly
(Hedera helix). Although we see a lot of diversity in the types of understory vegetation in this
polygon, invasives are not as pervasive because of the rich canopy cover. This polygon also has
large woody debris that has been uprooted by erosion of the soil and the tree’s placement at
the edge of a sharply steep slope.
Polygon 3 borders an unrestored area that is entirely covered with himalayan blackberry (Rubus
armeniacus) and creates the boundary of our restoration site. This polygon has a decent
amount of canopy cover, which is provided by the western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and a bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum) but also enough sunlight to sustain understory vegetation. Much
of the understory is composed of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), horsetail (Equisteum
arvense), lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina) and devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus). The polygon is
very wet but also has a large amount of organic matter.
Our final polygon is the steepest part of our site, but quickly levels off as it meets the Ravenna
Creek. This polygon is also the wettest (81% moisture content) in our site, with lots of water
pooled at the surface as it borders the creek. We do not see large trees in the area, so there is
the greatest amount of sun exposure here and no canopy cover. As a result of the increased
light availability, we see a great number of invasive species claiming the polygon. Our
vegetation in this polygon is mostly himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), morning glory
(Calystegia sepium), English ivy (Hedera helix), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea),
nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), and small-flowered bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus).
Table 1: Environmental conditions in polygons 1 through 4.
Polygon 1 Polygon 2 Polygon 3 Polygon 4
Soil texture Sandy loam Sandy loam Sandy loam Sandy loam
Soil moisture Saturated
Moisture content = 43%
Water table at about 20
inches
Saturated
Moisture content =
44%
Water table at about
20 inches
Saturated
Moisture content =
53%
Water table at about
20 inches
Heavily Saturated
Moisture content =
81%
Slope 13.6o
14.8o
15.2o
21.4o

14
Light
availability
High
(0% canopy cover)
Some seasonal
variability
Low
(85% canopy cover)
Minimal seasonal
variability
Medium-low
(70% canopy cover)
Some seasonal
variability
High
(0% canopy cover)
No seasonal
variability
Present
vegetation
Salmonberry
(Rubus spectabilis)
Horsetail
(Equisetum arvense)
Scouler willow
(Salix scouleriana)
Pacific willow
(Salix lucida)
Red alder
(Alnus rubra)
Bigleaf maple
(Acer macrophyllum)
Oregon ash
(Fraxinus latifolia)
English ivy
(Hedera helix)
Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus armeniacus)
Nightshade
(Solanum dulcamara)
Reed canary grass
(Phalaris arundinacea)
Silver fir
(Abies amabilis)
Blue spruce
(Picea pungens)
Western redcedar
(Thuja plicata)
Oregon ash
(Fraxinus latifolia)
Salmonberry
(Rubus spectabilis)
Horsetail
(Equisetum arvense)
(Rubus armeniacus)
Red huckleberry
(Vaccinium
parvifolium)
English holly
(Ilex aquifolium)
Western redcedar
(Thuja plicata)
Bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum)
Salmonberry
(Rubus spectabilis)
Horsetail
(Equisetum arvense)
(Rubus armeniacus)
Lady fern
(Athyrium filix-
femina)
Devil’s club
(Oplopanax horridus)
Himalayan
blackberry
(Rubus armeniacus)
Morning glory
(Ipomoea
muricata)
English ivy
(Hedera helix)
Reed canary grass
(Phalaris
arundinacea)
Nightshade
(Solanum
dulcamara)
Small-flowered
bulrush
(Scirpus
microcarpus)
Human
impacts
Low impact –
Soil had a low bulk
density (0.39) indicating
little compaction and
little disturbance.
Most disturbance will
be from people walking
off nearby trail or dogs
let off the leash.
Low impact –
Soil had a low bulk
density (0.47)
indicating little
compaction and little
disturbance.
be from people
walking off nearby
trail or dogs let off
the leash. As the main
entry point for
restoration, we will
take measures to
ensure that soil
compaction is kept to
a minimum.
Low impact –
Soil had a low bulk
density (0.42)
indicating little
compaction and little
disturbance.
be from people
walking off nearby
trail or dogs let off
the leash.
Low impact – close
to stream and not
easily accessible by
public
Other
considerations
soil pH = 5.4
Strong sulfur smell in
soil
soil pH = 5.5
soil
soil pH = 5.2
soil

15
Figure 5: The native species (green) border the
perimeter and parts along the inside of the site
Figure 6: The invasives (red), are located more along
the inside of our borders.
The initial arrangement of the invasives in relation
to the native species is helpful because it allows the
planting plan of new species that create shade to be
relatively straightforward. Due to the south-facing
slope, we can essentially plant more tall, fast-
growing species in the green areas in front of the
red areas to create shade to shade out and remove
the invasives.
At the most southern part of the site, the
presence of a stream comes into play. This
presents potential issues in removal and
associated erosion. With a high water table and
very saturated soil, it will be more challenging to
plant heavier species or ones that require deep
roots.In these areas, smaller shrub species will have to be used to create
shade.
AD4: We did not plant smaller shrub species because the area was so saturated that we
couldn’t move around, however we did manage to get quite a few willow stakes planted. Per
Ann and Lisa’s request, we did not do invasive species removal near the stream because the
threat of wetland damage and invasive species dispersion.
Site Preparation Activities
Polygon 1 borders a site that has already undergone a restoration project, so there are limited
amounts of invasive species. However, the invasive species that are currently on polygon 1
includes; English ivy (Hedera helix), himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), nightshade
(Solanum dulcamara), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). We plan to remove these
species by hand, excluding reed canary grass. Due to the fact that this polygon is is fairly muddy
and wet due to pooling of water, we will lay down 3 plywood boards or wood pallet so that our
group and the volunteers can walk without making detrimental imprints in the soil. Also, the
slope at the southern tip of the polygon is steep enough that we are worried about erosion, so

16
we will use fascines. This will help mitigate water runoff and prevent erosion, so our plants will
not be removed from their planting site.
Polygon 2 has the densest over story out of all of the polygons, plus it has large woody detritus.
Since it has both of these factors within the polygon, polygon 2 has a limited amount of invasive
species but still includes himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and English holly (Ilex
aquifolium). The large woody detritus has also made depressions that collect water, which
makes pools and muddy areas. To mitigate this we will add 3 plywood sheets wood pallets so
our group and the volunteers can navigate through the polygon.
Polygon 3 neighbors an unrestored site that is overtaken with himalayan blackberry (Rubus
armeniacus), which has the potential to encroach into this polygon. We will first need to
remove the himalayan blackberry in order to plant our plants. There are two downed snags on
the polygon, which have been uprooted and created pools for water. We will place two
plywood boards or wood pallets over the pools to help foot traffic through the polygon.
AD5: Much to our surprise, we were unable to find as many pallets as we expected. We
ended up using woody debris from a nearby fallen tree in the high traffic areas and even that
wasn’t enough to avoid soil disruption.
Polygon 4 has the steepest slope on the site and is located alongside the Ravenna Creek. Since
this polygon has 0% canopy coverage, it is consistently sunny. The sun combined with the
moisture from the creek has resulted in a dense population of invasive species including:
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), morning glory (Calystegia sepium), English ivy
(Hedera helix), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and nightshade (Solanum dulcamara).
We will need to remove the invasive species by hand, excluding reed canary grass, in order for
us to plant and shade out the invasives so they will not return. Since this polygon has the
steepest gradient we will also need to use fascines to help prevent erosion and water runoff
down the slope.

17
Figure 7: Diagram showing locations of intended fascines,
large woody detritus and invasive species

Logistical Considerations
Points of Access
Typically we will be parking in a nearby parking lot and walking down to the site. We can bring
materials down the trail from 62nd
as it is all downhill. However, there is a service road through
Ravenna Park that runs nearby our site for so if we have to move materials that are difficult to
walk down to the restoration site, we will contact the park service to let them know that we will
be utilizing the road in order to deliver materials. Our main concern here is being sure to
communicate with the park to let them know of our plans before we need to transport
materials.
AD6: We did not use the park service road.
Staging areas
There is not a lot of room to store plants and materials on site and we do not want to risk theft
or vandalism of our products, so we will be storing our materials off site in personal housing
until they are ready to be used at our restoration area. A number of team members have
fenced yards and space available in their homes to safely store materials prior to their use.
One of the other staging areas is the parking lot where the volunteers will be meeting us (see
Volunteer Parking). This is where we will conduct the introduction of the type of work they will
be doing as well as going through tool safety. We will also meet here at the end of the work day
for the conclusion/cleanup.
AD7: Many of our introduction and safety talks were done on site in addition to the planned
staging areas.

18Figure 8: Image of maps demonstrating where volunteer parking would be
located, staging areas and entry onto site.
The staging area as shown on Figure 8, is where the tarp will be laid for volunteers to put tools
they are not using as well as their bags/lunches/personal items.
Volunteer parking
When we work with volunteers, the initial meeting place will be at the parking lot that is at the
crossroads of 20th Ave NE and NE 58th St. If the parking lot is full, volunteers will also be able
to park along the street in the surrounding neighborhood. At the parking lot we will go over the
day plans and goals. After the introduction we will walk across the 20th Ave NE bridge and
north along NE 62nd St. A trailhead is located along NE 62nd St, which will lead us to the North
Ravenna trail. Our site is located on the trail, where we will also have our staging area for
materials.
Entry to site
Our site has a fallen tree with heavily saturated soil blocking the main entry point to the site.
After talking to Seattle Parks, we have decided to create a removable pallet that can be set on
the soil for easier entry. We will fashion the walkway with these pallets that have a large
surface area to distribute the weight across the soil and reduce compaction. After designing
and implementing the board, we will either be removing it after every work party or covering it
with pieces of woody debris to deter people from entering the site.

19
Planting Plan
Materials Table
Task Materials Qty Source Tools Qty Source
Task 1-
1a
Cardboard 5 On-site/Independent
sources
Shovels 5 On-site/School
Plastic Tarp 1 Independent Sources Gloves 15
Community
Partner
Wooden boards 5 Scrap wood
Task 1-
1b
sources
Shovels 5 On-site
Plastic Tarp 1 Independent Sources Gloves 15 On-site
Wooden boards 5 Scrap wood Rakes 2 On-site
Loppers 5 Independent
Sources
Task 1-
2a
Cardboard 5 Independent sources Shovels 5 On-site
Plastic Tarp 1 Seattle Parks Gloves 15 On-site
Wooden boards 5 Scrap wood
Task 2-
1a
Cardboard 5 Independent sources Rakes 2 On-site/School
Plastic Tarp 1
Independent Sources
Wooden boards 5 Scrap wood Gloves 15 On-site

20
Loppers 5 On-site/School
Independent
Sources
Task 2-
1b
Plastic Tarp 1 Seattle Parks
Independent Sources
Loppers 5 On-site/School
Task
2-2a
sources
Rakes 2 On-site/School
Plastic Tarp 1 Seattle Parks
Independent Sources
Task 2-
2b
Plastic Tarp 1 On-site/Store Shovels 5 On-site/School
AD8: We were unable to find wooden boards so we used woody debris that was around the site. We
did not use the tarps or loppers from outside sources as we had better quality tools of our own.
Our long-term goal for this site is to create a mixed conifer-deciduous forest, composed of
plants like western hemlock, bigleaf maple, western redcedar. and vine maple to name a few.
The end goal is to create a THPL/OPHO association, which will include species like A. circinatum,
A. rubra, O. horridus, T. heterophylla, and P. menziesii to name a few (Lillybridge, Kovalchik,
Williams, & Smith, 1995). Below we have detailed the species changes we plan to make to each
polygon, based on conditions like hydrology, slope, and the desired succession of our site
(“Stream and Wetland Enhancement Guide”, 2010). Much of the understory that we will
implement during our restoration will be to encourage wildlife activity in the area while barring
the re-entry of any leftover invasives (“Controlling Invasive Plants”, 2009). The majority of our

21
work will be focused on invasive plant removal and deterrence, and we have been asked by our
community partner to not plant specific species, such as lady fern and western redcedar.
Throughout our entire site, each plant will be spaced according to an on-center radius of 3 feet
in order to allow adequate establishment (“Strategic use of plant forms. . .”, 2009). If we are
able to complete all our tasks listed in the above sections, we will be successful in setting up the
conditions that will provide for a native riparian ecosystem.
Polygon 1
As this is a saturated site with high light exposure, we will be planting a willow canopy and a
sparse understory, which in time will be able to support conifer species as well. We will be
planting 40 live stakes for each willow species on our list, S. scouleriana and S. sitchensis, and
10 A. rubra bareroot to establish long-term shade (“Controlling Invasive Plants”, 2009). 3 1
gallon pots of A. circinatum will be planted to help with soil binding and stabilization, along with
5 C. sericea live stakes, 5 G. shallon 1 gallon pots, and 8 bundles of P. capitatus live stakes in
the form of fascines (“Stream and Wetland Enhancement Guide”, 2010; “Vine Maple”, 2012).
These will be needed to provide immediate shade to the 5 1 gallon P. menziesii we will plant in
the polygon while also providing understory structure and habitat. There will also be; 2 1 gallon
pots of H. discolor, 2 1 gallon pots of L. involucrata, 3 3 gallon pots of O. horridus, 8 cuttings of
R. spectabilis, 3 1 gallon pots of L. americanus, and 3 1 gallon pots of V. parvifolium, all of
which will contribute to the understory structure, and thrive on saturated soils.
AD9: In reality, we ended up using 20 Salix spp.s livestakes, 5 bareroot A. rubra, 7 bareroot A.
circinatum, 6 - 1 gallon G. shallon, 6 P. menziesii, and 30 P. capitatus live stakes to form 3
fascines. We did not use H. discolor, C. sericea, P. menziesii, L. americanus, V.parvifolium, O.
horridus, or R. spectabilis.
Polygon 2
In polygon 2, our main goal is to remove the small population of invasives, and to redistribute
the thick salmonberry bush to other polygons in this restoration site. This will thin out the
overgrown salmonberry while allowing us to reuse on-site plants. Currently, much of the area
supporting invasives in this polygon is exposed to light that will eventually be shaded out by
willows growing in polygon 1. The plantings in this polygon will mainly be to help establish a
mixed conifer forest.
We will be establishing a future canopy composed of 5 P. menziesii and 10 T. heterophylla, both
in 1 gallon pots, placed in areas that provide adequate light and shade conditions year-round
(“Controlling Invasive Plants”, 2009). Additional shade and protection to these plants will be
provided by 2 1 gallon pots of A. circinatum, 2 1 gallons of H. discolor, 5 live stakes of P.

22
capitatus, and 2 V. parvifolium. 5 G. shallon, and 2 L. involucrata, all in 1 gallon pots, will be
used to help establish understory habitat and structure where we are able to do so.
AD10: Instead of what’s written above, we used 2 P. menziesii, 8 T. heterophylla, 3 bareroot
A. circinatum, and 6 inch pots of V. Parvifolium. We did not use H. discolor, G. shallon, L.
involucrata, or P. capitatus.
Polygon 3
Our main concern with this polygon is the population of R. armeniacus located on the adjacent
site. While there has been little encroachment of this invasive so far, it is only a matter of time.
The shading our willow and alder trees will provide to this area will help to control the growth
of the R. armeniacus in both areas. Additionally, we will include smaller understory plants to
help provide a mixed conifer understory structure to this polygon while providing habitat for a
variety of wildlife species. The establishment of these understory species will also help control
the advance of invasives into this polygon and hopefully deter the R. armeniacus from reaching
further into our restoration site (“Controlling Invasive Plants”, 2009; “Stream and Wetland
Enhancement Guide”, 2009).
This polygon will be planted with 15 live stakes of both willow species (S. scouleriana and S.
sitchensis), 10 bareroot of A. rubra, and 10 1 gallons of T. heterophylla to encourage conifer
establishment beneath a willow-alder canopy, which will be providing protective shade. An
understory of 4 1 gallon pots A. circinatum, 4 live stakes of C. sericea, 8 1 gallon pots of G.
shallon, 4 3 gallon pots of O. horridus, 3 live stakes of P. capitatus, 5 cuttings of R. spectabilis, 4
1 gallon pots of L. americanus, and 2 31 gallon pots of V. parvifolium will be set up to help
provide immediate shade to plants like T. heterophylla until the willows gain a substantial
amount of leaves.
AD11: In polygon 3 we changed to 15 bareroot A. rubra, 20 R. spectabilis , 6 inch pots of V.
parvifolium, added 2 - 1 gallon P. menziesii. We did not use G. shallon, A. circinatum, C.
sericea, O. horridus, P. capitatus, S. scouleriana and S. sitchensis, L. americanus T.
heterophylla
Polygon 4
With wet soil, a water body, and high light exposure throughout the year, this polygon
experiences the most invasives in our site. Our focus will be to provide shade and encourage
the eventual removal these species, consisting mostly of C. sepium and R. armeniacus; because
of the high density of invasives in this polygon, providing quick shade will help with efforts to
remove them from the site both in the immediate future and keep them off the site in the

23
future (“Controlling Invasive Plants”, 2009; “Stream and Wetland Enhancement Guide”, 2009).
Despite the abundance of P. arundinacea we will not focus on its removal.
Once invasives have been removed from this polygon, we will plant 50 live stakes of S.
scouleriana, 45 of S. sitchensis, and 10 bareroot of A. rubra, which will provide a shady canopy
for the future of the site. We will use fascines of P. capitatus, on this polygon to help slope
structure and to diversify the area. We will use around 10-15 P. capitatus per fascine. The
fascines will be 2-3 feet in length and will have a three foot spacing between each fascine. For
more immediate shade and to help create streamside structure, we will be implementing 8 live
stakes of C. sericea, 1 1 gallon of H. discolor, 4 1 gallon pots of L. involucrata, 5 3 gallons of O.
horridus, 4 1 gallons of L. americanus, and 2 1 gallon pots of V. parvifolium. We will be planting
grasses, such as C. obnupta and G. elata, in masses by seeds.. Both are tolerate moist soils and
will help inhibit the recurrence of invasive species. We will plant 5 masses of both with 37 seeds
per mass. We will also be transplanting 8 R. spectabilis into polygon 4 from polygons 1 and 2
(Stevens and Darris, 2000). All of these species were chosen based on their ability to grow in
saturated soils and high light conditions (“Stream and Wetland Enhancement Guide”, 2010). If
established early enough, we hope that these species will deter any invasives from re-entering
the site (“Controlling Invasive Plants”, 2009)
AD12: We used 14 - 1 gallon G. shallon, 50 bareroot A. rubra, 20 stakes of P. capitatus, 6
bareroot L. involucrata, 6 inch pots of V. parvifolium, and 140 Salix spp.s. We did not use R.
armeniacus, C. sericea, H. discolor, C. sepium, P. arundinacea, O. horridus, R. spectabilis, L.
americanus, S. scouleriana or S. sitchensis

25
Image #: Final planting map, depicting the location of the planted species.
Map created by Conrad Meinhold in ArcGIS and Adobe Photoshop.

26
Budget Plan
Labor Budget
Labor by Activity Expenditure (in hours) Team Volunteers Total
Site Preparation
Border demarcation 0.5 0 0.5
Wooden plant setup 0.5 0 0.5
Garbage Removal 1 1 2.0
Subtotal site preparation 2 1 3.0
Invasive Plant Removal
Himalayan blackberry 20 30 50
Surrounding sites 20 20 40
English holly 10 10 20
Nightshade 4 0 4
English ivy 15 10 25
Morning glory/Bindweed 15 10 25
Subtotal invasive plant removal 84 80 164
Live Stake Planting
Redosier Dogwood 3 1 4
Ninebark 4 2 6
Black Cottonwood 3 1 4
Sitka Willow 3 1 4
Scouler’s Willow 3 1 4
Salmon Berry 2 1 3
Subtotal Live Staking 18 7 25
Potted Plant Transplanting
Vine Maple 2 1 3
Salal 2 1 3

27
Oceanspray 2 1 3
Black Twinberry 2 1 3
Devil’s-Club 2 1 3
Skunk Cabbage 2 1 3
Western Red Cedar 2 1 3
Western Hemlock 2 1 3
Red Huckleberry 2 1 3
Subtotal Transplanting 18 9 27
Total Projected Labor Hours 122 97 219
AD14: A physical border demarcation was never acted upon due to a request from our client.

29
Monetary Budget
AD15: Changes to the budget were made in consideration of plant availability, time
management, and the effectiveness of said plants.
Work Timeline
Shade with 1 of 3 colors to denote predicted amount of time per task
White 0
Green Between 0.5 and 5 hours labor
Blue Less than or equal to 10 hours labor
Red 11 or more hours of labor

30
Winter Quarter
Task 1/21 –
1/27
1/28 –
2/03
2/04 –
2/10
2/11 –
2/17
2/18 –
2/24
2/25 – 3/02 3/03 –
3/09
Actual Time Spent
(hours)
Catalog possible plants
and ecological issues
3
Devise and complete
major plans
200
Establish and solidify
community support
35
Prepare for Team
Meeting 2
6
Order / Collect
required materials
5
Prepare for Team
Meeting 3
6
Labor Hours 32.5
Spring Quarter
Task 3/24-
3/30
3/31-
4/6
4/7
-
4/13
4/14-
4/20
4/2
1 -
4/2
7
4/28
-
5/4
5/5 -
5/11
5/12 -
5/18
5/19 -
5/25
5/26
-
6/1
6/2 -
6/8
6/9
-
6/11
Actual
Check site
maintenance and clean up
12.5
Team meeting
(schedules)
2
Volunteer Hours 93
Prepare for team meeting
1
6
Prepare for team meeting
2
6
Gathering resources for
poster
5
Design Poster 4

31
Invasive removal 66
Practice presentation 2
DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE
We envision a future where our site will blend seamlessly into the surrounding Ravenna Ravine
ecosystem, a mature and diverse mixed conifer forest that supports a wide variety of plant and
animal wildlife. We foresee a healthy wetlands habitat along the stream that filters possible
future stormwater runoff and encourages a return to a healthy amphibian population.
Aesthetically speaking, our site will be a wonderful place for community members to connect
with nature. In addition to the whole of Ravenna Ravine, the diversity of our site opens future
potential spaces for an outdoor classroom to educate students from local schools about the
ecology of our Pacific Northwest ecosystem. Our site is very delicate, so it isn’t ideal to have
students off the trails. However, there are areas within the park that allow students low-impact
access to the stream and closer examination of plants and trees.
The area is a natural slope and that has the potential to provide a healthy place for the filtration
of stormwater runoff. At this point the stormwater runoff flows from the streets straight into
the city drainage system, which in turn flows straight into sewage treatment plant in West
Seattle. We envision a drainage system that utilizes the natural filtration potential of the
Ravenna Ravine ecosystem. To be prepared for that day, we will plan to create a fully
functioning natural filtration system.
Our planting plan will ensure a quick growth of shady plants that will prevent invasive species
from crowding out the diverse plant and animal populations. Planting conifers in groups will
increase chances that they remain standing and from here, and with continued maintenance,
our site should continue to develop a healthy forest succession progression and eventually
become a dense conifer forest. Once there are more conifers and a further development of
root systems below ground, there will be fewer opportunities for trees to fall over on the steep
slope.
Although natural areas surround our site, it is a public park so there will be continued exposure
to pollution, foot traffic, and invasive species. Likely there will be considerable changes in
climate that will affect our site. There will be heavier rains, longer summer droughts, increase in
water, air, and soil temperatures, and other effects that we don’t yet know (National Climate
Assessment, 2014). It may be several years before our site and the surrounding forest will be a
self-sustaining ecosystem. We will create a long-term stewardship plan that discusses
continued maintenance of the site and possible complications that might arise. Included in the

32
plan will be a continued need for volunteers to maintain invasive species removal and possibly
plant more as the site continues to mature.
APPENDIX A
Original plants on-site, organized into canopy, understory, or groundcover. Common name,
Genus species, and nativity to the Pacific Northwest are listed (Pojar et al., 1994)

33
APPENDIX B
Total area of invasive removal
INVASIVE REMOVAL
Approximate sq. ft. of removed invasives at your site: (Total: 10,800 sq. ft.)
3000 (Feb 27)
3,300 (April 9)
1500 (May 9)
3000 (May 21)
Approximate sq. ft. of removed invasives at last year's UWREN site (Total: 1600 sq. ft.)
1600 (April 9)
Total numbers of plants planted by day
PLANTING
#Trees from pots (Total: 23)
15 (April 9)
8 (May 21)
#Shrubs from pots (Total: 19)
10 (April 9)
9 (May 21)
#Trees bareroot (Total: 90)
90 (April 9)
#Shrubs bareroot (Total: 20)
20 (April 9)
#Trees live stake (Total: 88)
48 (March 12)
40 (April 9)

34
LITERATURE CITED
National Climate Assessment. (2014). Retrieved February 11, 2016, from http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
Controlling Invasive Plants. (2009). Hildacy Farm Natural Lands Trust. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from
https://natlands.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/01/Invasives2009-07Page.pdf.
Flory, S. L., & Clay, K. (2009). Invasive plant removal method determines native plant community responses.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(2), 434-442. Retrieved January 28, 2016, from http://www.florylab.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/05/Flory-and-Clay-JAE-2009.pdf.
Inventory and Prices for Woodbrook Native Plant Nursery. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2016, from
http://woodbrooknativeplantnursery.com/plants/inventory.
Lillybridge, T., Kovalchik, B., Williams, C., & Smith, B. (1995). Field guide for forested plant associations of the
Wenatchee National Forest. USDA. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr359.pdf.
Stevens, M., and D. Darris. (2000). Plant guide for salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Plant Materials Center, Corvallis, OR. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from
http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/cs_rusp.pdf.
Strategic use of plant forms and spacing for ecological restoration. (2009). University of Washington. Retrieved
January 29, 2016, from http://courses.washington.edu/ehuf462/463_mats/plant_forms_strategy.pdf
Stream and Wetland Enhancement Guide. (2010). City of Ashland. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from
http://www.ashland.or.us/files/Stream-WetlandGuide_10.2010.pdf.
Vine Maple. (2012). Retrieved January 29, 2016, from http://www.nwplants.com/business/catalog/ace_cir.html.
Pojar, J., MacKinnon, A., & Alaback, P. B. (1994). Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast: Washington, Oregon, British
Columbia & Alaska. Redmond, Wash: Lone Pine Pub. Print.

As-BuiltReport_RavennaRavine

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to As-BuiltReport_RavennaRavine

Similar to As-BuiltReport_RavennaRavine (20)

As-BuiltReport_RavennaRavine