chuckanut community forest restoration...

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


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/

http://www.chuckanutcommunityforest.com/files/CCF-Baseline-Documentation-Report-Final-5-8-17.pdf





Figure 1: Chuckanut Community Forest trails and wetlands, from Eissinger (2017).



Figure 2: Chuckanut Community Forest draft trail plan, developed by City of Bellingham Department of

Parks & Recreation (Potter 2020).



Figure 3: Hydrologic connections between CCF wetlands. Locations and directions of

hydrologic flows are marked with arrows. Source: Kunz (2006).



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).

chuckanut community forest restoration...

Documents