1

Natural Resources Building

Redwood Native Plant Habitat Restoration

at Humboldt State University

ENVS 411: Sustainable Campus

Spring 2013 - Senior Capstone

Cate Be

Brian Gregg

Nick Hurn

Rebecca Wilson

2

Table of Contents

Title Page 1

Table of Contents 2

Problem Statement and Background 4

Goals and Objectives 7

Alternatives 7

a Hand Removal

b Mechanical Removal

c Grazing

d Herbicide

e Application Methods; Combination

Methods 11

a Site Inventory

b Ivy Removal & Disposal

c Mulch

d Native Plant Installation

e Tools, Clean Up, & Watering

f Follow Up & Monitoring

Implementation 17

Results 21

Monitoring 24

Acknowledgements 27

3

Literature Cited 30

Appendices 33

A. Appendix - Map of Project Site 33

B. Appendix - Native Plant List Selection 34

C. Appendix - Volunteer Authorization 35

D. Appendix - April 21st Volunteer Workday List 36

E. Appendix - April 28th Volunteer Workday List 37

F. Appendix - Plant Design 38

G. Appendix - Approved Project Proposal 46

H. Appendix - Letter of Donations 53

I. Appendix - Photos of Site Pre-project 59

J. Appendix - Photos of Removal 61

K. Appendix - Photos of Planting 63

4

Problem Statement and Background

Humboldt State University is the home thousands of different plant species, and is well-

known for the biodiversity present throughout the campus. Many of these plant species come

from all over the world and are thus considered non-native exotics. When these plants start to

compete with or crowd out native plants, however, they are considered invasive. Invasive species

can quickly eliminate native species from an ecosystem, unless swift remediate actions are taken.

Several non-native invasive plant species are overwhelming in some areas on campus,

degrading potential habitat for native plant species. Canary Ivy, detrimental to our Redwood

forests, surrounds the Natural Resources building, and has essentially created a monoculture,

impacting the resiliency of native plant species, decreasing biodiversity. This invasive

dominated landscape is a poor physical representation of what Humboldt State teaches its

biological, ecological, and environmentally conscious students. Thus, removing the invasive

species from such a prominent center of environmental education is paramount.

The invasive in question, Canary Ivy (Hedera canariensis), is a rapid growing vine

species native to the Canary Islands, Portugal, and North Africa. It inhabits most of the

continental U.S. and prefers woodlands, forests, coastal areas, and fields (Christman 2013). It

thrives in many different climates, particularly warm temperate areas. Ivies were likely brought

to North America as ornamentals, favored for their adaptability, aesthetics, and ease of

cultivation (Christman 2013). Canary Ivy is considered one of the fastest growing ivies and thus

can easily dominate its surrounding environment. It has broad, leathery green leaves and can

climb trees, rocks, and walls with ease (CIPC 2006).

5

Like English Ivy, Canary Ivy can grow nearly to the top of surrounding trees. Once

overgrown, the ivy blocks sunlight from reaching the affected tree. The lack of light combined

with the added weight of the ivy can weaken the tree, ultimately killing it. As the ivy spreads

over the ground competing with native species for nutrients, water, and light, it can significantly

alter an ecosystem, often reducing its biodiversity (CIPC 2006). For this reason, Canary Ivy,

along with many other types of Ivy, is considered invasive.

Like English Ivy, Canary Ivy has two main life phases, juvenile and adult. In the juvenile

stage, the ivy grows horizontally, searching for a vertical surface. When the ivy finds a tree,

fence, rock, or other vertical surface, it will climb upwards. This climbing stage is characteristic

of ivy in its adult phase. Once established on a surface, the ivy will produce fruit, seeds, and

berries which are eaten by birds, and spread in their droppings. Ivy in its juvenile stage can be

incredibly prolific, producing extensive underground root systems, which pose a significant

challenge to restoration and removal efforts (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Life cycle of ivy

There is a disproportionate amount of native plant species represented in the project site,

which is a prominent location for environmental enthusiasts and restorationists. Native plants

represented only a fraction of the project site: less than 12%. In addition to their natural beauty,

6

native plant species are the foundation of our native ecosystems, or natural communities,

offering many benefits for both humans and our environment (CNPS, 2013). Once established,

many native plants need minimal irrigation beyond normal rainfall. Low maintenance

landscaping methods are a natural fit with native plants that are already adapted to the local

environment. Native plants have developed their own defenses against many pests and diseases.

Reducing or eliminating pesticide use lets natural pest control take over and keeps garden toxins

out of our creeks and watersheds. Native plants are the cornerstone of biological diversity.

Redwood forests are a unique ecosystem. Within our project site, several redwoods are

present. Landscaping under redwoods can present a challenging trio: shade, acidic soil, and

dryness. Redwood trees cast fairly dense shade. Redwood leaves fall thick and fast, and acidify

the soil as they break down, presenting two challenges: acidic soil and removing leaf litter from

the plants so they aren’t weighed down and overwhelmed. The best way to handle the leaf litter

issue is to avoid plants with delicate foliage; plants with leathery leaves or some sturdy structure

to them handle this type of situation best. Redwoods have a lot of roots. The best ways to handle

this are by topdressing and adding wood chip mulch to further help keep moisture, giving new

plants some easy areas to put down roots so they can get established. The toughest native plants,

for closer to the redwood’s base: Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), Sword fern (Polystichum

munitum)), Salal (Gaultheria shallon), and Redwood sorrel (Oxalis oregana). Plants that will

enjoy life 10 feet from a redwood’s base: Flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum), Pacific

bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa), and Douglas iris (Iris douglasii) (CNPS, 2013). We took

these challenges into consideration when selecting a plant palette for our project site. The native

plants that we selected for our project site can be viewed in Appendix B.

7

Goals and Objectives

There are four main goals for this project we would like to accomplish. Those goals are

to create a habitat for native plant species; improving ecological resilience of the site by

increasing the diversity of native plant species; improving aesthetic quality of the project site;

and include long-term maintenance of the project site.

Our objectives for this project include the following: decrease the abundance of non-

native and invasive plant species by 100% at the project site; eradicate all non-native plant

species by the third week of April 2013; complete native shrubs and flowers by end of April

2013; implement monitoring strategy to ensure invasives do not return; and create a guide and

dialogue for future restoration projects on campus by sharing information, resources, and

potential networking connections.

Alternatives

The process of removing invasive English ivy can be a time consuming and expensive

process. Issues that need to be considered when selecting a method of removal include the

overall project objectives, extent and type of infestation, amount of native vegetation present, site

size and land orientation, local and state ordinances, overall cost, and the time and transportation

means that will be required for the removal and elimination of the ivy biomass. There are several

techniques to for the eradication of English ivy and the four most common and successful are

detailed below (Swearingen 2006).

Hand-Pulling

The hand pulling method is the most time consuming and labor intensive way of

performing successful English ivy removal. This method is usually implemented in smaller areas

of restoration where other alternatives are not acceptable. This method involves pulling the

8

individual ivy runners up one by one, including all major root pieces and offshoots to prevent

further propagation. All ivy should be removed but woody debris should be left on site to

provide essential habitat for native species since most ground cover will be removed. English ivy

is an evergreen, so the best months for removal without disturbance to native plants are in the

winter and fall months. The hand pulling method is found to be the most effective when the soil

is slightly moist, as it loosens up the medium and the roots pull free with more ease (Young

2012).

There are a few other downsides to removal by hand other than high labor intensity and

high cost. These include the heavy disturbance of soils and established native plant species.

When ivy is pulled, due to its ability to spread far and thrive with shallow root structures, much

of the top soil is disturbed and left uncovered; creating an excellent site for invasive seedlings to

become established. Without monitoring, follow-up or combinations with other types of

treatments, this method has the potential to be far less successful for long term removal (Beck

2007).

Mechanical Removal

Mechanical removal involves the use of tools or machinery to remove or destroy the

viable parts of the English ivy root system. Various forms of hand tools are extremely useful for

ivy removal, especially when techniques such as the ‘log roll’ are also applied. The log roll

engages the use a polaski and a crew of people to remove dense mat-like ground coverage and

roll up for easy removal. Weed eaters and other forms of mowing are the most common

machinery applications for english ivy removal but both techniques have limitations. Weed

eaters and other methods of mechanically removing above ground foliage are only a temporary

fix unless combined with other techniques such as pesticides or mulches. These applications

9

should occur in the winter and fall months to reduce affected native vegetation and

unintentionally introduced seedlings. Since the roots have the ability to re-establish themselves

unless completely removed or destroyed, yearly reapplications are necessary for this method to

be sustainable and prevent re-infestation (Soll, 2005).

Grazing

Grazing, while applicable to the removal of many other types of invasives, has been

debated for the removal of English ivy due to the fact it is found to be slightly toxic to

herbivores. Although in several case studies, goats that had been previously exposed during their

adolescence to Hederin (a secondary plant compound found in ivy that causes toxicity), did not

experience the same negative effects from induced ivy grazing. High intensity grazing for short

times is the widely accepted commercial application of this method due to the complications and

cost for long term livestock maintenance. Goats are naturally browsers and eat foliage, so they

do not remove the underground roots of English ivy which can potentially result in yearly

resprouting. Case studies have shown that repeated applications can significantly increase the

chances of success. One example that was performed in Wilsonville, Oregon shows that a one

day, once a year grazing pattern can significantly reduce ivy presence down to >5% within two

applications (Borman 2010).

Herbicides

Chemical treatments, like triclopyr and glyphosate, absorb into plant tissues and kill

entire plants within about 7 days. Positive results have been noted with ivy, but due to the natural

waxy resistance of the ivy leaves, many herbicides are limited in their effectiveness and would

require reapplications (Swearingen 2006). One factor that contributes in the effectiveness of

herbicide application is proper timing and understanding of the active and dormant stages of

10

English ivy and local native species. Recent research from Portland, Oregon has found that

glyphosphate (Round-Up Pro) gave a 95% control rate with just one application when applied

specifically during sunny times of the winter months (Soll, 2005).

Application methods

Another major factor that influences herbicide success rates is the method of application.

Due to the various types of infestations that can occur, there are multiple types of treatments in

action today. The basal bark application involves mechanically removing a band of foliage and

applying triclopyr to the exposed stems while trying to avoid the host tree or plant. The cut stem

application involves removing a portion of the vine above ground. The upper pieces will die

naturally once separated from the roots and an application of triclopyr is applied using a

paintbrush to the freshly exposed root cuts. For ivy that is low lying or in a ground cover, the

method of foliar application appears to be the most useful. This involves an application of

triclopyr directly to the foliage leaves and requires care not to result in excess runoff. Due to the

appearance of new growth in spring and summer, treatments performed at this time of year have

a larger reduction on ivy populations while treatments that and performed in the winter months

show a reduced impact on native species (Swearingen 2006).

Combination

A combination of many of the above mentioned techniques are usually found to be more

effective than the singular application of any single one. For instance, the integration of hand

pulling following herbicide or vice versa can be very effective in removing regrowth and

preventing propagation. Also mechanical methods can be used to create new growth (small new

leaves) which is more susceptible to the intake of herbicides through foliar application (Soll,

2005).

11

For this restoration project, hand pulling was the most applicable treatment available for

the removal of the English ivy. The decision was based on the size and condition of the plot, the

available number of volunteers and the long term goals as well as the landscaping goals of

Humboldt State University. A speedy removal was necessary in order to work within the granted

time frame and slope of the site prevented heavy machinery for anything but the application of

mulch. When consulting with the grounds manager, Doug Kokesh, about removal methods, he

informed the group that pesticides and herbicide use was not an option for student groups. This is

because of liability and safety concerns. While goats provided an interesting ecologically green

option, the urban site and large amounts of passerby made this option less realistic.

Methods

There will be a period of initial data collecting. This data would include a plant species

inventory, species composition, percent cover, and site photographs of the project site prior to

the removal of the ivy. After data collection, we will proceed to remove and dispose of the ivy,

mulch the site, plant the native species, follow up any loose ends, and begin monitoring.

Site Inventory

A species inventory and composition list was the first data collection. This is extremely

important in determining which plants are on the site, and how many. This list will be used to

compare to the post project list to see the difference. This list determined which plants were to be

removed, as well as any natives to be kept. With the plot being relatively small for a restoration

site, it decided to physically count each species while doing a detailed walk through. This plot

contained mostly English Ivy and Sword Ferns, but there were many other species that blended

into the overall view. After determining species identification and quantity, the plot was divided

into eight smaller but equal sub-plots so the rest of the data and following decisions could be

12

more site specific (See Appendix F). This allowed us to assess a more accurate species % cover.

Another important inventory tool used was the digital camera. Pictures were taken from set areas

to get a visual overview of the site, pre-removal. Pictures are a simple way to give one of the best

perspectives of the scope of work being done, and are an excellent way to visually document the

site. Post-project pictures were taken from the same set locations and compared to pre-project

pictures to show the contrast.

Invasive Ivy Removal and Disposal

Once hand removal was decided as the best method, access to the roots of the ivy was

important to remove them. This required tools in the initial stages of removal. The ivy had grown

into a dense mat over the course of 40 years or so; it decided to start on the uphill side and roll it

downhill like a carpet. Tools such as a pulaski and loppers were used to cut the rolling mat from

the roots that anchored it to the soil. This process removed the bulk of the ivy and left access to

the roots where the grubbing (hand pulling) took over. This was a tedious task, but the roots and

rhizomes have to be removed to limit the chances of resprouting. The rolled up carpets of ivy

were then loaded into a dump trailer, provided by HFAC, until full and ready to be hauled away.

The smaller pieces of ivy and their roots were put into 10 cubic foot canvas bags with handles to

ease the transport from ground to trailer. This allowed grubbing and loading to be much more

efficient. The trailer took the ivy to a secluded location where it could be left to bake in the sun

and dry out. This procedure may be counterintuitive to some that would bring it to a green waste

facility. Infact, a green waste facility would load it into a chipper to dump into a dirt/compost

pile to turn into soil. This has the potential to spread seeds or ivy material that could possibly

root in the future. There is only a slight chance of this occurring, but it was not worth the risk of

spreading it. The dumped pile of ivy, or ivy loaf (shaped like the trailer), will dry out and flatten

13

to a relatively small pile only a couple feet high compared to the original eight foot tall loaf.

Once dry, dead, and small, the pile will be taken to a facility that will burn it for electricity. This

ensures that all biomass of the ivy is destroyed completely. The dump trailer made a total of

three trips totaling 30 cubic yards of ivy biomass.

Mulch

Mulch is a critical ingredient to suppressing the attempts of regrowth by the ivy. It was

projected that the site needed 3-4” of redwood mulch to be more than sufficient in inhibiting re-

growth of the invasive ivy. Calculations of the measurements at the site concluded that we

needed to cover the area with approximately 60 cubic yards of mulch. We acquired the mulch

through two donations and one purchase. Four tons of Redwood mulch was purchased from

Steve Morris, through Humboldt Fish Action Council. Doug Kelly, the executive director of

HFAC, agreed to obtain the mulch at cost. This four tons is roughly equivalent to 13 cubic yards.

Doug Kelly used a dump trailer to load and deliver the mulch on campus days before our work

day. There was 20 cubic yards of Redwood mulch that was provided by DC Fairhaven Power

Plant. Bob Marino was gracious enough to donate and have the mulch delivered to the campus

days before the work day. The rest of the Redwood mulch we humbly requested from HSU Plant

Operations, under Doug Kokesh. Doug agreed to donate the remainder of the mulch to meet the

required amount for this project. An attempt to obtain the entire amount through donation and

cost without help from the school was made, but because the project site is larger than initially

proposed, it was nearly impossible for a student group, without proper and sufficient funding, to

meet the entire amount of 60 cubic yards. The mulch was dumped on the west side of the library

parking lot, on the maintenance road, and mixed with HSU’s mulch to maintain a uniform look.

14

This was coordinated 72-hours in advance with Doug Kokesh to allow him time to prepare the

proper equipment and workforce needed to mix.

Doug also agreed to shuttle the mulch from its mixing location by the library, to the site.

It was agreed that Plant Ops would dump several large piles of mulch at the edge of the sidewalk

along B St. and 17th St. in front of the Natural Resources building. Permission was granted from

Parking Services to barricade the two streets for mulch delivery and working space for the

workday, and was coordinated with parking several days before the event. Parking Services put

up signage along the street at least 48 hours in advance of any parking restrictions once notified.

The mulch was delivered on the Friday afternoon before the first workday on Sunday,

April 21. As removal of the ivy on sub-plot 1 finished, mulch was moved via shovel and

wheelbarrow, to the bare soil. This proved to be slow and tedious as well, but Doug offered to

use the University's front end loader to assist in moving the mulch. Carlos Jones, a well-known

veteran maintenance worker of HSU, operated the loader and moved large amounts of mulch

from the street to the site. This was extremely helpful and needed, as the ability to shovel all 60

cubic yards that day was a concern. Parking for Monday morning was a huge concern; it was

necessary to remove the mulch off the street. Once the mulch was dumped onto ivy free soil, it

was dispersed evenly across the site. At the conclusion of workday one, we had removed 80% of

the ivy and had all of the mulch off the street. It was spread evenly on completely removed area,

and left in piles where ivy remained. The remainder of the ivy removal was moved to the second

work day, Sunday, April 28. On the second workday, we arrived at the site to see three more

piles of mulch at the last removal spot. We were informed by Doug that we would not have the

luxury of the front loader this time, but we were able to manually move the mulch around via the

large canvas bags and wheelbarrows.

15

Native Plant Installation

After the removal of all of the ivy, we transplanted 10 varieties of Redwood native plant

species at the project site. We have a plant design attached that indicates the placement of each

native plant species. Please see Appendix D for the plant design. The Redwood sorrel and

woodland strawberry are more or less ground cover and will be spreading, so there are no

specific numbers indicated on the map. We have 6 flats of each and each flat has 10-20

individual plants. We are transplanting 2 flats at each section of sorrel, and all 6 flats at the

strawberry section shown on the map. There are large sections of iris on the map. These sections

are areas where another member of the Iris family (Crocosmia) resided; they are replaced with

the native Douglas iris. There are no specific numbers indicated on the map for these irises, but

the amount we have received in donations is sufficient to replace the current plant species. All

other plant species on the map are true to count (one for one). We had acquired all of the native

plants through purchase and donation from two different nurseries. On the Thursday before the

second workday, our group traveled to Samara nursery in Mckinleyville to pick up all of the

plants. They all fit in three separate, mid-sized, SUV’s. We stored the plants in Cate and Brian’s

backyard until Saturday afternoon, when Doug Kelly from HFAC came by so we could load all

of the plants into his trailer for the following morning. This got all of the plants to the site in one

easy trip. Saturday evening, each plant location was flagged, with orange flags, according to the

plant design map (see Appendix F). On the morning of the workday, the plants were placed by

the flag to where it was mapped to be planted. When the workforce was ready to plant, we gave

each plant species an introduction so the volunteers knew what they were planting and why.

There was a quick demo performed of digging the hole, scouring the edges of clay holes, un-

bounding the root-wad of the plant, and planting even with the soil. Each plant was planted by

16

volunteers of the project with the appropriate spacing and depth (species specific). Group

members ran around assisting, answering questions, and checking quality control. It was hectic,

yet smooth.

Tools, Clean Up, and Watering

A variety of tools were used to complete this project. All of the tools used were provided

through Humboldt Fish Action Council, HSU’s Natural Resources Club, and HSU’s Plant

Operations with approval by Doug Kokesh. The tools used on the invasive ivy removal workday

were: pulaskis, rakes, wide-ended shovels, McClouds, pitchforks, wheelbarrows, push-brooms,

vegetation bags with a 20 cubic ft capacity, blowers, and a front end loader. The tools used on

the native planting workday were rakes, wide-ended shovels, planting shovels, pitchforks,

wheelbarrows, push-brooms, and water hoses.

The pulaski was used to tackle the larger, older growth of ivy; rakes, McClouds, and

pitchforks were used to spread the mulch after the removal; rakes were used to gather excess ivy

debris; wide-ended shovels were used to gather mulch on the street; wheelbarrows were used to

carry both ivy and mulch to their desired locations; push brooms were used to gather ivy, debris,

and mulch; vegetation bags were used to collect ivy and also used to carry mulch upslope and

then deposit; gas-powered hand-blowers were used to clean up the remainder of debris from the

road after the removal work day; and a front end loader was used to help move large portions of

the mulch from the road onto the slopes of our project site.

Access was gained to the irrigation system through Doug Kokesh. He brought out the

building plans so a water source could be located, and he provided the water connection so we

could turn it on. We had three 75 foot hoses connected together so we could manually water the

entire plot. This took some extra time because the new plants need a saturated soil to get a good

17

start. With 3-4” of mulch on the ground, it took a couple of hours to saturate the mulch and soil

sufficiently.

Follow Up & Monitoring

After the project completion, we did follow up visits to make sure everything looked

good and was in its right place. This was easy to see daily by walking to class and noting

changes or issues. The only follow up measures that needed to be taken were spreading out of

some mulch clumps, and reconnecting one of the gutter pieces. We will need to revisit the site to

place one stump that we acquired but did not put in its location. Plant Ops is going to remove one

of the old alders in the front of the building, so we didn’t place the stump and a couple of plants

to give them ample space to remove the tree. We will return to place the stump when the alder is

gone, or possibly wait until after graduation so we don’t compromise the aesthetics of the site or

cause traffic issues on graduation week.

Monitoring will be done by group members for the remainder of the semester. There is

little expected to change, but we will watch the site for changes. Cate and Brian are two of the

officers in Natural Resources Club, and have secured a workday for the club to revisit the site

next semester to remove any regrowth of ivy. This will continue to be a priority for the club in

future semesters, as this is their building. Monitoring details will be discussed in the monitoring

section below.

Implementation

The first order of business is to contact Doug Kokesh, HSU Grounds and Landscape

Manager. He coordinates all landscape upkeep and changes. The group submitted a proposal to

him to secure permission to do the project. After two weeks, a request was made for a more

detailed proposal; project plans were still in development, and was not very specific to how goals

18

would be accomplished. Also, many people said that this was an overambitious goal and it would

be very difficult to acquire all of the resources and labor needed. The approval committee,

overseeing major landscape decisions, was worried about several things and they sent us a

request to explain how we would take care of several aspects of the job (see proposal). After

consultation with Doug Kokesh, and some research, resubmission of an extensive proposal that

met all of their needs was approved. Once the project was a go, dates were set for workdays, and

dedicated volunteers were contacted to let them know when the events were scheduled.

Cate is both the President and Co-Event Coordinator for the Natural Resources Club and

Brian is the Co-Event Coordinator; they graciously added two workdays on their club’s calendar

this semester in order to execute this endeavor. The first workday was Sunday, April 21st, and

was scheduled from 9:00am - 2:00pm. Please see appendix A for the list of volunteers that

worked at removing the ivy on April 21. Please see appendix B for the list of volunteers that

worked at planting the natives and removing the remainder of the ivy on April 28.

Once the dates were set, we notified our contacts and donators of when to deliver the

mulch. The mulch has to be delivered with 72 hours advanced notice for plant ops to make

accommodations and know what is going on. It is important to keep the landscape management

team up to date on what the project is doing. They are the most important stakeholders because

the campus aesthetics comes down to them. We also informed parking services on the Thursday

before the first work day so they could prepare signage to block off the streets. We informed

Doug that we would have two workdays and he was told by upper management that he would

supervise during our project.

The first workday was Sunday, April 21, and began at 8 am. Doug Kelly (HFAC) was on

site to deliver tools and supplies. He brought donated bagels and coffee for the volunteers. The

19

group set up tables for breakfast and coffee for the volunteers. Tools were then set out and

barricades were placed around the mulch piles to give the volunteers space to work. Once

several people had showed up, we directed them to a sign in sheet that the university requires for

all work done on campus. We gave volunteers about 20 min to eat breakfast and then we

proceeded to tell them how to pull ivy. We gave an intro on why it is invasive and what

detrimental effects it can have. Everyone was game and started rolling ivy mats. As we removed

chunks of ivy, we loaded it onto Doug Kelly’s trailer. For the first two hours we did nothing but

rip ivy out of the soil. At first it was nothing but ivy, but then became fern infested ivy. When it

is all ivy, you can rip away, but when you reach natives that need to be saved, the pace slows. It

was critical to save as many native species as possible. The salmonberries were actually missed

in the initial species inventory because they had not sprouted through the ivy. It was amazing

how much the ivy suppressed the other plants. As one crew ripped the ivy from the ground,

another tossed it in the trailer until it was full. We continued pulling ivy while the trailer dumped

it in the preferred location. It is important to tell the crew where to be careful of native plants.

Volunteers can get into a crazed rhythm of pulling everything, so you must mark off special

places to be careful, or designate an informed person of what plants to keep.

As the ivy was removed down 17th

st, mulch was thrown down in the bare soil from the

stairs at the entrance to the building. Doug and Carlos brought out the front loader to help us

relocate the mulch from the street to the site. During the operation of the front loader, there were

people directing traffic.

When holding a volunteer event, it is crucial that you feed them, especially when they

have worked for several hours at a tedious job. Big Pete’s Pizzeria agreed to match four pizzas

purchased with four free. They are willing to donate to local projects, especially for the school.

20

At 2 p.m. the group stopped pulling ivy and ate lunch. Food was a vital thing to keep some

people interested in sticking around for another two hours. After lunch, the group thinned to

about 10 people, but still got a lot accomplished. The last details of workday one were to blow

the mulch off the street and to make the site look good for now. We would be back on the

following Sunday, so we left small piles of mulch on the site. Posters were laminated and stapled

onto steaks that were left on the site explaining the project goals and what was happening. Also,

“Restoration in Progress” signs were posted to let the student body know this was a student

group making the change, and not just landscaping doing their thing.

On Sunday, April 28, the second workday began at 8 a.m. with our group, and Doug

Kelley from HFAC. Again, we set up the tables for breakfast and coffee. This is a small step that

is crucial to making volunteers feel welcome and satisfied before work begins. The plants were

unloaded from the trailer and placed along the street close to where they were to be planted.

Once breakfast was done, we decided to bring the entire workforce to the unfinished ivy removal

area. We wanted to concentrate on getting the ivy completely removed. There were three more

piles of mulch dumped so the site had enough coverage. Once the ivy was removed 100%, we

broke for a quick meeting up by the front entrance of the building. After break, the plants were

introduced, methods of planting were explained, and a motivational speech by one of the NR

club members was cheered, “There have been many that have failed, but we are actually doing it.

This is a special time”. The volunteers broke out and planted plants. Group members assisted in

planting, but mostly ran around placing plants by flags, assuring the right plants were planted in

the right locations. While this was taking place, another group continued transporting mulch

from the street to needed areas. Doug Kelly began cooking burgers for the volunteers at about 2

p.m. The Humboldt beef burgers were donated by Dean Hunt, a farmer in the Arcata bottoms

21

that the NR club actively participates in restoration events on his ranch. There were also garden

burgers and veggie burgers as options. Again, food is essential in taking care of volunteers and

through generous donations, and a fun loving cook, we ate well.

After all of the plants were planted, people could rest and get ready for lunch. We started

watering with the three 75’ hoses that Doug Kokesh had provided. This is more of a task than

though of initially. For water to saturate and penetrate the mulch, several minutes need to be

spent watering. Watering continued about one hour after the volunteers had left. It is a simple,

but necessary job. The new plants need an abundance of water after transplanting for the best

success in survival. A watering was going to b done the following Sunday as well, but it rained a

decent amount and the extra watering was not done.

Results

The initial study of the project area included 12 different plant species. These species

included: Oregon alder (Alnus oregano), Sword fern (Polystichum munitum), Redwood tree

(Sequoia sempervirens), mixed ground cover of strawberry (Fragaria sp.), Redwood sorrel

(Oxalis oregana), Lady Fern (Athyrium filix-femina), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae L.),

cultivated vetch species (Vicia sativa), Juncus species (Juncus effusus), Montbretia (Crocosmia

crocosmiiflora), California nettle (Urtica dioica L. ssp. gracilis), an unknown plant species, and

Canary ivy (Hedera canariensis). An initial count was taken for plant species that could be

individually counted. The areas, in which larger species could be counted for, were also

estimated in square meters. For plant species that could not be individually counted, a

measurement of the area occupied by the plant species was recorded in square meters. Percent

coverage estimates were then assessed to evaluate the abundance of invasive and native plant

species present in the project area.

22

In assessing the percent coverage, the project footprint was estimated. This project area

measured to roughly 607 m2 (See Appendix A). Prior to the removal process, only 13-14% of the

site was made up of plant species that were not canary ivy. The canary ivy represented over 80%

of the project area (See figure 2); Montbretia, woodland strawberry, Sword fern, and Canary ivy

were the only plant species that were both visually present, and register on the graph (figure 2).

Figure 2: The percent cover of each plant species present prior to the implementation of the first

phase of the restoration project (removal of canary ivy)

Post implementation of both volunteer work days, the percent cover of each plant species

altered, along with additions of new plant species. Figure 3 shows the percent cover of each plant

species present after the post implementation of both volunteer work days. The project site pre-

implementation had 12 identifiable plant species; currently the site has 21 plant species. The

project site pre-implementation had only 4 visually physically present plant species; currently the

project site post-implementation has over one dozen visually physically present plant species,

and they are visually represented in figure 3. By removing such an invasive species from this

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent Cover

Common name of Plant Species

Percent Cover of Plant Species (Pre-Project)

23

site, and spreading 3-4” of Redwood mulch, habitat for native plant species was successfully

created. Ecological resilience of the site has been improved by increasing the diversity of native

plant species by almost double. The aesthetic quality of the project site has been improved

greatly with a variety of transplanted native plant species, and a uniformed, clean appearance of

the Redwood mulch.

Figure 3: The percent cover of each plant species present after the implementation of the second

phase of the restoration project (native planting)

The project was able to decrease the abundance of non-native and invasive plant species

by 100% at the project site. Figure 4 indicates the percent cover of invasive plant species vs.

native plant species. Though not found in abundance, there were 3 other non-native plant species

on the project site: Bermuda buttercup, Montbretia, and the cultivated vetch. Eradication of all

non-native plant species was completed by the third week of April; complete native shrubs and

flowers by were transplanted by the end of April. Figure 5 indicated the abundance of non-native

24

and invasives with native plant species, post implementation of the second phase of the

restoration project.

Figure 4: Graph showing the abundance of invasives and native plant species prior to the

implementation of the first phase of the restoration project (removal of canary ivy)

Figure 5: Graph showing the abundance of invasives and native plant species post

implementation of the second phase of the restoration project (native planting)

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring is one of the most critical steps, and in most restoration projects, is often

overlooked or forgotten. Usually it is due to lack of funding, inaccessible monitoring plans, or

0

20

40

60

80

100

Invasive Native Redwood mulch/leaflitter

Percent Cover

Common name of Plant Species

Percent cover of Invasive vs. Native Plant Species (Pre-Project)

25

new employees that are not aware of the project. Eliminating these constraints allows better

probability that the project will be monitored in the future. On this restoration project, funding

for monitoring is not an issue. The Natural Resources Club isn’t funded, yet they find time to

consistently volunteer for experience like this. As current officers, Cate and Brian are informing

new and old members that this is going to become partially the club’s responsibility, which they

are up to the task.

Past restoration projects, similar to this, have had the tendency to be forgotten. Their

written reports didn’t have a central database where students could review and learn from them.

In the past few years Tall Chief Comet, the Director of Sustainability, has created a project and

document database. This is a searchable database that includes student projects developed by

ENVS classes and documents from Office of Sustainability projects and internships. This

information is located on the University's Office of Sustainability webpage. This will ensure our

project, including monitoring plans, is available to future students who may want to learn from

our project.

The rotation of students and club members is always a concern for continued work on a

project. Students today may move on to other things, but the Natural Resource Club is as

consistent of a club as any. They have been involved in restoration projects since 1993, and are

back in the growing phase. This project, and others, will continue to succeed with their

dedication.

Monitoring will include four criteria: Success criteria, long-term monitoring, Success

criteria will be developed and determined by comparing initial data collected with post project

data. Identification of plants on site prior to removal of ivy has been recorded. Quantity of plant

individuals prior to removal of ivy has been recorded. With this data, percent coverage will be

26

determined. Regarding success criteria; one of the goals was to remove at least 75% of the ivy on

site; this has been accomplished. One of the goals was to increase native plant species; native

plant species has increased by 187%, from 8 natives to 15 natives. The goal to create native plant

habitat and increase ecological resilience has also been accomplished due to the removal of the

invasive Canary ivy. Long-term monitoring will include site visits from Plant Operation

personnel as well as students at HSU. There has been collaboration and cooperation with the

Natural Resources Club, and they have agreed to implement at least one event annually to

remove re-sprouts of the ivy. Plant Operations has also agreed to set up an irrigation system that

will allow the native plants to be watered twice a week.

Evaluation of our project site includes comparison of before and after photos and site

visits to make certain goals have been attained. Over 30 photographs of the project site have

been taken prior to the work days. Many photos have been taken during the volunteer work days,

and after, to view culmination of day’s work. Adaptive Management for this project site involves

creating threshold points regarding invasive plant recurrence, erosion, and native plant survival.

Management strategies will be implemented if threshold is exceeded. If the project area is

represented by 10% of ivy re-sprouts or more, thresholds points are considered exceeded for

invasive plants. A workday will be scheduled ASAP with the Natural Resources Club and

coordinated with HSU Plant Operations. When thresholds points are exceeded for erosion, mulch

will be placed in sensitive areas losing topsoil due to extraneous reasons. When mulch is found

to be a thickness of 1” or less, or if bare ground is observed, Plant Operations will be notified

and encouraged to address problem. If more than 50% of any particular existing native plant

species fails to transplant in the new environment, thresholds points are considered to be

exceeded for native plant survival. Native plants already designated in an area but are failing,

27

will be replaced by the same or a different, approved native plant species that may prove to be

more successful. Plant(s) replacing failed transplants will be attained by small purchase or

donation through well-established relationship with two native plant nurseries in the area, or

HSU Plant Operations.

Acknowledgements

It is known that the attempt to remove the ivy from around the Natural Resources

building has been made at least 6 times in the past, and all projects have been denied approval.

Doug Kokesh acknowledged that this is the first group that understood the demand and resources

that a project of this magnitude required. Cate Be and Brian Gregg’s affiliation with the Natural

Resources Club was essential to the approval and completion of this project. Cate was a

tremendous asset to the proposal, logistics, networking and energy of this project. Brian was a

valuable player in the plant design. The Natural Resources Club allowed both of these

individuals to utilize and exercise collaboration with several nonprofits in the county due to their

positions and relationships with executive directors and environmental science managers.

Gracious appreciation and thank you to Doug Kelly, executive director of Humboldt Fish

Action Council for his large donations, time, and effort. He was involved with each work days,

providing coffee, bagels and juice in the mornings, and provided a wonderful BBQ on the second

work day. He delivered mulch, transported and disposed of the ivy at no cost, and supplied tools

for both work days. He was in great spirits both days, and provided moral support and praise.

Thank you Doug Kelly!!

Huge thank you and appreciation for Troy, Eric and Josh at Samara Restoration. Their

donation of nearly 200 individual plants made the plant list demands much easier, both

financially and logistically. The majority of the project’s plants were acquired from this nursery.

28

Purchases for plants were also made at a lower cost than from another nursery, due to the

relationship Cate and Brian had with the owners. The Samara team were also extremely

knowledgeable on each species, and helpful with suggestions on how to plant. Their

professionalism and kindness are a pleasure to work with.

Thank you to Kevin Fingerman, instructor for this capstone course, for getting in touch

with Bob Marino, general manager at DC Fairhaven Power Plant. After hearing about the

project, Bob Marino decided to donate 20 cubic yards of Redwood mulch. Many thanks for this,

and for transporting and delivering to HSU campus at no cost. It was a generous and gracious

donation, and extremely helpful.

Thank you to Suzanne Isaacs for donating the Oregon grape plants that we used in our

project site. It helped with keep the cost of this project down. The quality of these plants were

wonderful, and helped with meeting aesthetic standards.

Thank you to both Cate’s mother, Sandra Be, and Cate’s employers, Julianne and Art

Bettini, for their generous donation of $100 each. It helped with the cost of the remainder of

plants, as well as the pizza for volunteers at the end of the first work day. The funds were also

used to purchase sides and beverages for the BBQ lunch after the second work day.

Thank you to Traci Ferdolage, Mark Baker, Michael Mesler, and the remaining members

of the committee that approved this project. Without an approval, the project would have never

been implemented.

The largest and last thank you goes to all the wonderful volunteers that engaged and

participated in our work days. For a list of volunteers for each work day, please see Appendix C

and D. Special acknowledgement and thank you to these HSU students and/or community

members who volunteered for both work days:

29

Jennifer Be, Jeffrey Borum, Nicholas Colbrunn, Christina Cortez, Juan Diaz-

Infante, Peter Nguyen, Forrest Prince, Kristy Smith, Sara Thiele, Katie White, and

Anneliese Wilson (also group members Cate Be, Brian Gregg, Nick Hurn and Rebecca

Wilson).

Thank you to Grounds Manager Doug Kokesh and Grounds Facilities Carlos Jones, who

both work at Plant Operations at HSU. This project was closely organized with Kokesh, and he

was both positive and supportive of this project. He was available whenever the project called for

aid, and he was generous with both equipment and authorized a donation of 30 cubic yards of

mulch to meet the complete demand. Carlos helped transport a large portion of mulch from the

roadside onto the slope of the project site with a front loader. There was no request for this

machinery, but Doug and Carlos wanted to see the project complete just as much as the capstone

group. Carlos also helped remove some ivy himself, and both gentlemen helped with cleanup

after the first work day. The day would have been harder and longer without their help. Many

thanks.

30

Literature Cited

Agler, Brett, Robert Camacho, Pat Kennedy-Caldwell, Jacob Faucher, and Roger Stephens.

"Native Plant Habitat Restoration on Humboldt State University Campus." Office of

Sustainability. Humboldt State University, May 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

Beck, C. and Biggerstaff M. Effects of Method of English Ivy Removal And Seed Addition on

Regenteration of Vegetation in a Southeastern Piedmont Forest. The American Midland

Naturalist. 158:206-220. 2007.

Biggerstaff, Matthew S., and Christopher W. Beck. Effects of Method of English Ivy Removal

and Seed Addition on Regeneration of Vegetation in a Southeastern Piedmont Forest. The

American Midland Naturalist Jul 158.1 (2007): 206-22. Print.

Cal-IPC: Hedera Spp. "Hedera Spp. (English and Algerian Ivy)." N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2013.

<http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/plant_profiles/Hedera_helix.php>.

Borman, M. and Ingham, C. English Ivy Response to Goat Browsing. Invasive Plant Science and

Management. Issue 3. Weed Science Society of America. April-June 2010.

California Invasive Plant Council, "Invasive Plants of California's Wildland." 2006. Web. 14

Feb. 2013. <http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/management/ipcw/pages/detailreport.cfm@usernumber=

55&surveynumber=182.php>.

Christman, Steve. "Floridata: Hedera Canariensis." Floridata: Hedera Canariensis. Floridata, 15

June 2006. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. <http://www.floridata.com/ref/h/hedera_c.cfm>.

Costello, L. R. "Control of Ornamentals Gone Wild: Pampas Grass, Bamboo, English and

Algerian Ivy." Proceedings - California Weed Conference.38 (1986): 162-70. AGRICOLA.

Web. 13 Feb. 2013.

31

Growing Natives Program. California Native Plant Society, 1999-2013. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.

<http://www.cnps.org/cnps/grownative/>.

Humboldt State University NOW: Humboldt Named Among America’s Best in Environmental

Studies. Ed. Communications &. Marketing. Humboldt State University, 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 17

Feb. 2013.

Ingham, Claudia S., and Michael M. Borman. "English Ivy (Hedera Spp., Araliaceae) Response

to Goat Browsing." Invasive Plant Science and Management 3.2 (n.d.): 178-81. Print

Kondolf, Mathias G. "Five Elements for Effective Evaluation of Restoration." Restoration

Ecology 3.2 (1995): 133-36. Print.

Lakics, Heidi and Joy Luther. "Campus Restoration Task Force." Office of Sustainability.

Humboldt State University, May 2005.

Soll, Jonathan. Controlling English Ivy (Hedera helix) in the Pacific Northwest. The Nature

Conservancy. Jan 2005. http://www.invasive.org/gist/moredocs/hedhel02.pdf

Swearingen, Jill M., and Sandra Diedrich. "English Ivy- Fact Sheet." Plant Conservation

Alliance's

Alien Plant Working Group. PCA, n.d. Web. <http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/hehe1.htm>.

Swearingen, Jil et al. Fact Sheet: English Ivy Plant Conservation Alliance (PCA) Alien Plant

Working Group. National Park Service. April 2006.

<http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/hehe1.htm>.

Smith, J P. Campus Flora Atlas: A Guide to the Cultivated and Native Plants of the California

State University, Humboldt, Campus. Arcata, Calif., 1972. Print.

Office of Sustainability - Projects. Humboldt State University, 2013. Web. 14 Feb. 2013.

<https://humboldt.edu/sustainability/projects>

32

Young, S., R.et al.. Instructions for Removing English Ivy and Discussion of Safety. City of

Alexandria Dept. Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities. Alexandria, Virginia. 2012.

(http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/recreation/parks/Instructions%20for%20Removing%20E

nglish%20Ivy%20and%20Discussion%20of%20Safety_v2.pdf)

33

Appendix A – Map of Site

34

Appendix B - List of Native Plant species selected for project site.

Native Plant Species Qty. Size Spread Container

size

Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) 9 2-3’ 8-10’ 1-gallon

Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 11 4-

1

0

’

10’ 1-gallon

Redwood sorrel (Oxalis oregana) 60 10” spreading 6 flats

Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium) 12 2-3’ 5’- more 1-gallon

Flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum) 2 8’ 8’ 1-gallon

Common bleeding heart (Dicentra

spectabilis)

13 2-3’ 3’ 1-gallon

Douglas iris (Iris douglasii) 40 1-2’ 2-4’ wide

clumps

1-gallon

Common Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) 5 2-5’ 4-6’ 1 & 5 gallon

Sticky Monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus) 2 3’ 3’ 5 gallon

Woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca) 60 1’ 2’ 3X3”

35

Appendix C – Volunteer Authorization Sheet

36

Appendix D - List of Volunteers for April 21 Volunteer Work Day

1. Catherine Be 14. Forrest Prince 27. Fernando Rodriguez

2. Nicholas Hurn 15. Jennifer Be 28.Perry Scott

3. Brian Gregg 16. Nicholas Colbrunn 29. Rhonda Cloud

4. Rebecca Wilson 17. Kristy Smith 30. Caitlin Davis

5. Jeffrey Borum 18. Martiza Guzman 31. Adin Shy-Sobol

6. Christina Cortez 19. Sarah McGuire 32. Michelle Strehl

7. Peter Nguyen 20. Monica Rodriguez 33. Kimberly Clark

8. Jimmie Stuckey 21. Braden Pitcher 34. Annette Penny

9. David Morgan 22. Sabrena Abrezewicz 35.Electra Mathews-Novelli

10. Sara Thiele 23. Brian Washburn

11. Katherine White 24. Robyn Siplon

12. Juan Diaz-Infante 25. Joseph Smith

13. Anneliese Wilson 26. Michael Wold

37

Appendix E - List of Volunteers for April 28 Volunteer Work Day

1. Catherine Be 14. Peter Nguyen

2. Nicholas Hurn 15. Jennie Rose Saunders

3. Brian Gregg 16. Jeffrey Borum

4. Rebecca Wilson 17. Katherine White

5. Anneliese Wilson 18. Juan Diaz-Infante

6. Corinne Krupp 19. Forrest Prince

7.Aaron Katz 20. Jennifer Be

8. Angela Shaver 21. Nicholas Colbrunn

9. Sarah Jishi 22. Kristy Smith

10. Ian Camacho 23. Christina Cortez

11. Victor Dumlao 24. Raphael Vielra

12. Katie Siedel 25. Sara Thiele

13. Kimberlee Tellez

38

Appendix F – Plant Design

39

Appendix F – Plant Design

40

Appendix F – Plant Design

41

Appendix F – Plant Design

42

Appendix F – Plant Design

43

Appendix F – Plant Design

44

Appendix F – Plant Design

45

Appendix F – Plant Design

46

Appendix G - Approved Project Proposal (approved April 15th

)

Natural Resources Building Restoration Project Proposal

Efforts are being coordinated on-site and under the supervision of the University’s

Grounds Manager, Doug Kokesh

The location proposed is acceptable according to Traci Ferdolage, Facilities Management

All plant species proposed are identified below, with quantity and size* of each plant

species: *size and spread are descriptive of each plant’s average range in size and spread

Native Plant Species Quantity Size Spread Container

size

Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) 9 2-3’ 8-10’ 1-gallon

Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 13 4-

1

0

’

10’ 1-gallon

Redwood sorrel (Oxalis oregana) 60 10” Spreading 6 flats

Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium) 12 2-3’ 5’- more 1-gallon

Flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum) 2 8’ 8’ 1-gallon

Common bleeding heart (Dicentra

spectabilis)

13 2-3’ 3’ 1-gallon

Douglas iris (Iris douglasii) 40 1-2’ 2-4’ wide

clumps

1-gallon

Common Snowberry (Symphoricarpos

albus)

5 2-5’ 4-6’ 1 & 5 gallon

Sticky Monkeyflower (Mimulus

aurantiacus)

2 3’ 3’ 5 gallon

Woodland strawberry (Fragaria vesca) 60 1’ 2’ 6 flats

A designed drawing for the project is attached

o

47

Appendix G - Approved Project Proposal

o The project site was divided into 8 plots to make it easier to show more precise

plant locations.

o The north facing side of the building is divided into four equal length plots. The

west facing side is also divided into four equal plots, and although they are not the

same length as the first four plots, the scale of the pictures remains the same

throughout.

o Plot one begins at the NE corner staircase of the building and plot eight ends at

the SW corner staircase.

A proposed grant for $200.00 has been secured through HSU CCAT as of March 29,

2013

All donations are specifically identified below and letters are attached

o Letter from Samara Restoration for donated native plant species

o Letter from HFAC Native Plant Nursery for donated native plant species

o Letter from Julianne Bettini for $100 donation

o Letter from Sandra Be for $100 donation

o Letter from HFAC executive director Doug Kelly for 4 tons of mulch, tools,

transportation, and disposal

o Letter from DC Fairhaven Power Plant General Manager Bob Marino for 20 cubic

yards of mulch, including delivery.

o Letter from Richard Hansis for donated redwood logs

o Verbal agreement on April 2nd with Doug Kokesh regarding 30 cubic yards of

mulch donated to project through HSU Plant Operations

Doug has also agreed to assist with some of the disposal of the ivy, as well

as shuttle mulch from a designated location, to a staged site near the

Natural Resources building after mixing it with mulch we attain from

other sources

Updated proposed volunteer work day schedule for implementation is as follows:

o April 21st 9:00am-2:00pm : Eradication of Ivy with large group (25+)

o April 28th 9:00-2:00pm: Native Plant Installation with large group (25+)

o May 5th 9:00-2:00pm: Aesthetic maintenance and touch-up of entire area

o All work will be completed by May 9th, 2013; 9 days before graduation

Continual monitoring and maintenance by Cate Be and Brian Gregg will

be implemented up to graduation day, ensuring high quality and aesthetic

standards

Storm water mitigation has been addressed to ensure we continue to comply with

regulations concerning management of runoff during the project.

o During the wet season in Arcata, between October 15 and April 15, HSU’s

maintenance projects must take into account weather from NOAA. If there is a

50% chance or greater for rain, within 48 hours of the project date, the project

will be postponed or cancelled.

48

Appendix G - Approved Project Proposal

o Fortunately our proposed work days are scheduled for April 21, 28 and May 5th

Our project falls outside of the dates concerning stormwater mitigation

requirements

o In the event it does rain, we plan to have our mulch on site, addressing the

steepest slopes first to prevent any potential excess runoff.

Implementation Mulch After ivy abatement plan is implemented, the plan is to cover the grubbed area with 3-4” of

Redwood chips/mulch. This depth is more than sufficient in inhibiting re-growth of the invasive

ivy. The project area will need 60.5 cubic yards of mulch. We have acquired 62 cubic yards of

mulch through two donations and a large purchase. 4 tons of Redwood mulch is provided through Humboldt Fish Action Council. Doug Kelly, the

executive director of HFAC, has agreed to obtain the mulch at a low cost through a source of his.

The cost of this mulch is $73 per ton. This 4 tons is roughly equivalent to 12 cubic yards. 20 cubic yards of Redwood mulch is provided through DC Fairhaven Power plant. Bob Marino

has been gracious enough to donate and deliver the 20 cubic yards. 30 cubic yards of Redwood mulch we humbly requested from HSU Plant Operations, under

Doug Kokesh. Doug has agreed to donate this amount of mulch to meet the required amount for

this project. We attempted to obtain the entire amount through donation and cost, but because the

project site is larger than we initially proposed, it was nearly impossible for our student group,

without proper and sufficient funding, to meet the entire amount of 60.5 cubic yards. There will be several trips made with Doug Kelly’s dump truck to acquire all of the mulch. The

mulch will be dumped on the west side of the library parking lot and mixed with HSU’s mulch to

maintain a uniform look. This will be coordinated 72-hours in advance with Doug Kokesh to

allow him time to prepare the proper equipment and workforce needed to mix. Removal of Ivy The Natural Resources Club will graciously add two workdays on their calendar this semester in

order to support this endeavor and be a part of a much needed course of action. The first

workday is expected to be April 21st from 9:00am - 2:00pm. We are still waiting approval for

the site/project. Students and community members who will help with this task are listed on the

following page.

49

Appendix G - Approved Project Proposal

List of Volunteers (as of March 30th

)

1. Catherine Be 21. Peter Nguyen

2. Nicholas Hurn 22. Perry Scott

3. Brian Gregg 23. Nathaniel Moy

4. Rebecca Wilson 24. Adin Shy-Sobal

5. Anneliese Wilson 25. David Morgan

6. Annette Penny 26. Joseph Smith

7. Electra 27. Jeffrey Borum

8. Jimmie Stuckey 28. Brian Washburn

9. Emma Held 29. Michael Wold

10. Kimberely Tellez 30. Russell Burkett

11. Victor Dumlao 31.

12. Katie Siedel 32.

13. Jake Skrbina 33.

14. Kara Frampton 34.

15. Sarah Jishi 35.

16. Kristy Smith 36.

17. Katie White 37.

18. Mariana Ramirez-Rodriguez 38.

19. Sarah Thiele 39.

20. Jennifer Be 40.

The volunteer list will no doubt be larger when the work day approaches. Disposal of Ivy Disposal of ivy will happen two ways. First, a major portion of the ivy removed will be

discharged by HFAC. There will be at least two vehicles with capability to haul the ivy to a

50

Appendix G - Approved Project Proposal

disposal site in a trailer (holds 14 cubic yards). These vehicles will return to the site, retrieve

more ivy removed, and take to the disposal site as necessary. There will be also be a staging area near the Natural Resources building for Doug Kokesh and

others to retrieve any remaining ivy, and take to an appropriate location. The removal work day is scheduled to be one day and it will take 6 to 10 trips to haul the ivy

away.

Tools

Tools will be provided through Humboldt Fish Action Council, HSU’s Natural Resources Club,

and HSU’s Plant Operations with approval by Doug Kokesh. Native Plant Installation The Natural Resources Club will graciously add two workdays on their calendar this semester in

order to support this endeavor and be a part of a much needed course of action. The second

workday is expected to be April 28th from 9:00am - 2:00pm. After the removal of all of the ivy

and mulch is put down, we are transplanting natives at the project site. We have a plant design

attached that indicates the placement of each native plant species. The Redwood sorrel and

woodland strawberry are more or less ground cover and will be spreading, so there are no

specific numbers indicated on the map. We have 6 flats of each and each flat has 10-20

individual plants. We are transplanting 2 flats at each section of sorrel, and all 6 flats at the

strawberry section shown on the map. There are large sections of iris on the map. These sections

are areas where another member of the Iris family (Crocosmia sp.) resides. We plan to replace

them with the native Douglas iris because according to Cal-flora.org, Michael Mesler, and

Suzanne Isaacs, Crocosmia sp. is an non-native invasive, and spreads in disturbed areas. There

are no specific numbers indicated on the map for the amount of Douglas irises we are planting,

however, the amount we have received in donations is sufficient to replace the current plant

species. All other plant species on the map are true to count (one for one).

We have 198 individual plants that are being donated for this project. We are purchasing 40 in

addition to the 198. Of the 198 plants we have donated, we have 179 scheduled for planting. The

additional 19 snowberries we will have on hand is in the event there are additional spaces in the

sun for planting. Of the 40 plants we are purchasing, 37 are scheduled for planting. The

additional 3 bleeding hearts we will have on hand is in the event there are additional spaces in

shady locations for planting.

Purchases

Mulch

$73/ton(4 tons) = $292

for Redwood mulch/bark (includes tax)

51

Appendix G - Approved Project Proposal

Native Plants

We have an agreement to purchase these plants at these costs from Samara Restoration:

Native Plant Species Quantity Price per plant

Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) 9 $4.00

Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 13 $4.00

Flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum) 2 $4.00

Common bleeding heart (Dicentra spectabilis) 16 $2.00

Total 40 $128(1.0825)=$138.56

Total Cost for project materials

$292 (12 cubic yards of mulch)

+ $138.56 (native plant purchases)

$430

Funds available: $100 (Bettini donation)

+ $100 (Sandra Be donation)

$200 (CCAT Grant)

$75 (supplemental CCAT funds available per Kevin Fingerman)

$475

$475-$430 = $45 surplus

Other purchases

We will be partnering with the Natural Resources Club for 2 Sundays (April 21; 28) for our work

days. With the surplus of funds from either the Bettini or Be donation, we are going to help with

the cost of food for a BBQ lunch for volunteers after the work days. Doug Kelly is cooking the

BBQ afterward, and he is helping with the Humboldt grass-fed beef. We are going to help with

the cost of the turkey patties and veggie patties for vegetarians in our work groups.

52

Appendix G - Approved Project Proposal

We appreciate the concerns brought up by administration, and believe that these concerns have

been appropriately addressed. We believe we have taken into account the social and

environmental consequences of the project at hand, and believe the proposed actions will

improve the aspects of the department, university, as well as our experience as undergraduates.

We now humbly request the approval, in writing, from the Campus Building Official and the

Associate Vice President, Facilities Management, so that we may move forward with this

project.

Thank you very much,

Cate Be; ENVS 411 group representative

Environmental Science – Natural Resources

ENVS-411 Sustainable Campus

clb156@humboldt.edu

53

Appendix H - Letter of Donations

54

Appendix H - Letter of Donations

55

Appendix H - Letter of Donations

56

Appendix H - Letter of Donations

57

Appendix H - Letter of Donations

58

Appendix H - Letter of Donations

59

Appendix I - Photos of Site Pre-project

60

Appendix I - Photos of Site Pre-project

61

Appendix J - Photos of Removal

62

Appendix J - Photos of Removal

63

Appendix K - Photos of Planting

64

Appendix K - Photos of Planting