Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ESCI 439/539 CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
design_ccf_2020.pdf 1 McLaughlin
Chuckanut Community Forest Restoration Design
Due Dates
Draft: Tuesday October 20
Final Report: Tuesday November 3
Recommended Length Project final report: up to 10 pages, including maps, tables, and figures.
Context
Chuckanut Community Forest (CCF) was acquired as public open space due to its outstanding
environmental values, desirable natural aesthetic character, and strong potential for outdoor recreational
uses. Without thoughtful design and management, some of these values may conflict. In particular,
intensive recreational uses can degrade wetlands, impair sensitive ecological processes, and disturb
diverse plants, animals, and habitats.
In the several years since CCF was opened to public access, ecological conditions and aesthetic qualities
have been degraded by construction of new trails, widening of pre-existing trails, and associated
disturbances to soil, vegetation, woody debris, wildlife, and wetlands. Trail proliferation has degraded
CCF ecological conditions and experiences of some human visitors, who get lost amidst an expanding
web of trails.
Many impacts of recreational uses in CCF could be reduced or resolved through restoration and by
implementing an appropriate trail network design in a forthcoming park master plan. A trail design will
delineate which trails should be retained, which trails should be realigned or mitigated with bridges or
boardwalks, and which trails should be removed. Trail removal or mitigation will require effective
restoration. Without restoration, trail impacts will persist or visitor use will re-create removed trails.
Work on the CCF master plan by Bellingham Parks Department is scheduled to begin in 2022. Your
excellent restoration design work could inform the official plan, and expedite resolution of conflicts
between conservation and recreation.
Design Project Details
Project goal: to develop a trail impact restoration design for Chuckanut Community Forest, suitable for
inclusion in the CCF park master plan.
Design objectives consist of the following.
(1) Removed and narrowed trails: restore compacted soils to uncompacted condition.
(2) Removed and narrowed trails: restore locally native vegetation.
(3) Removed trails: direct visitor use to sanctioned trails and deter future use of removed trails.
(4) Narrowed trails: restrict visitor use to narrowed trail tread.
(5) Mitigated trails: determine locations and dimensions of boardwalks or bridges to reduce impacts
to wetlands and seasonally wet trail locations.
(6) Restore hydrologic connections between wetlands: restore impacts from old logging roads that
impede surface and subsurface flows between wetlands.
For this project, you can determine locations of trails likely to be removed by comparing the map of
trails in the CCF baseline report (Figure 1; Eissinger 2017) with the Parks Department draft trail plan*
(Figure 2; Potter 2020). Assume trails marked with “X” and “?” will be removed. You can determine
locations and extent of trail mitigation needed by identifying segments of retained trails that cross
ESCI 439/539 CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Conservation Design Project
design_ccf_2020.pdf 2 McLaughlin
wetlands (Figures 1-2). Hydrologic connections between wetlands need to be restored wherever trails
cross those connections. Hydrologic connections were identified in a 12 April 2006 wetland
determination by the Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Kunz 2006), Figure 3.
Your design should include the following components
(1) Description of approach to restore compacted soils where trails are to be removed or narrowed.
(2) Description of approach to restoring vegetation, including targeted plant species or growth forms
(ferns, herbaceous plants, shrubs, trees).
(3) Description of structures or strategies to deter use of closed trails and to direct visitors to sanctioned
trails.
(4) Description of structures or strategies to restrict visitors to narrowed trail treads, which may be
similar to (3).
(5) Map of locations for trail-wetland mitigation structures, and descriptions of structures to be
installed. The map also should identify locations where work to restore hydrologic connections (6)
would be conducted.
(6) Description of approach to restore hydrologic connections between wetlands, where trails and old
roads impede surface and subsurface flows.
(7) A plan to monitor and evaluate effectiveness of (1)-(6). The plan should include assessments one,
five, and ten years after implementation of your restoration design.
References
Eissinger A. 2017. Chuckanut Community Forest Baseline Documentation Report. prepared for
Chuckanut Community Forest Park District, Bellingham, WA. [online] http://www.chuckanutcommunityforest.com/files/CCF-Baseline-Documentation-Report-Final-5-8-17.pdf
Kunz, K. 2006. Letter to David Edelstein, wetland determination. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Seattle, WA.
Potter, L. 2020. Fairhaven Park Draft Trail Plan. Department of Parks & Recreation, City of
Bellingham, WA.
*Additional proposed trail plans, developed in prior years by students in this course, can be viewed at
the following URL.
https://www.chuckanutcommunityforest.com/news/
ESCI 439/539 CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Conservation Design Project
design_ccf_2020.pdf 3 McLaughlin
Figure 1: Chuckanut Community Forest trails and wetlands, from Eissinger (2017).
ESCI 439/539 CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Conservation Design Project
design_ccf_2020.pdf 4 McLaughlin
Figure 2: Chuckanut Community Forest draft trail plan, developed by City of Bellingham Department of
Parks & Recreation (Potter 2020).
ESCI 439/539 CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Conservation Design Project
design_ccf_2020.pdf 5 McLaughlin
Figure 3: Hydrologic connections between CCF wetlands. Locations and directions of
hydrologic flows are marked with arrows. Source: Kunz (2006).
ESCI 439/539 CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Conservation Design Project
design_ccf_2020.pdf 6 McLaughlin
Evaluation: Maximum 100 points possible. A blank evaluation form is shown below.
ESCI 439 Conservation of Biological Diversity
CCF Restoration Design Evaluation Sheet Name ____________________
Part 1 Restore compacted soils (15 pts) ______
Part 2 Restore vegetation (15 pts) ______
Part 3 Deter closed trail use; direct visitors to sanctioned trails (15 pts) ______
Part 4 Restrict visitors to narrowed trails (10 pts) ______
Part 5 Map and description of mitigation structures (10 pts) ______
Part 6 Restore hydrologic connections (10 pts) ______
Part 7 Monitoring and evaluation plan (15 pts) ______
Writing and Presentation (10 pts) ______
Total (100 pts) _______
Evaluation rubric: Descriptions that fully meet the following criteria will earn full credit.
Part 1 Restore compacted soils: approach clearly described; methods plausible and practical. Methods
appropriate to sites. (15 points)
Part 2 Restore vegetation: approach clearly described, plausible, and practical. Vegetation species or
growth forms appropriate to sites and likely to establish. (15 points)
Part 3 Close trails and direct visitors to sanctioned trails: strategies and structures clearly described,
feasibly installed, and likely to be effective. (15 points)
Part 4 Restrict visitors to narrowed trails: criteria similar to part 3. (10 points)
Part 5 Structures described clearly. Structures would be practical and effective. Map identifies locations
clearly, easy to interpret, conforms to standard cartographic conventions (e.g., includes legend, scale
bar, and directional arrow). (10 points).
Part 6 Restore hydrologic connections: approach clearly described; methods plausible and practical.
Methods appropriate to sites. (10 points)
Part 7 Monitoring and evaluation plan: includes measurements sufficient to evaluate performance
relative to the six objectives. Measurements can be recorded and analyzed practically and non-
invasively, yielding clear results. (15 points)
Writing and Presentation: ideas are clearly and effectively presented using written and visual elements.
Paragraphs use transitions where appropriate, sentences are well-formed, language is precise,
spelling is correct. Figures or tables illustrate ideas effectively, easy to interpret, and are cited in
report text (10 points).