Riverbend Environmental Education Center provides an environmental ...
Beyond the overall plan, two projects were selected to receive additional design.
Updated Master Site Development Plan Riverbend Environmental Education Center
August 2010
Mara Lee Baird, RLA, ASLA ML BAIRD & CO Landscape Architecture Kelly Gutshall, RLA, ASLA LandStudies John R. Frondorf, Principal Becker & Frondorf
Riverbend Environmental Education Center: Laurie Bachman Executive Director Stacy Carr-Poole Director of Education Chris Wales Property Manager
Master Plan Study Committee: Rick Gallagher, Property Committee Member Robert Lambert, Jr. PE, Board Director William B. Read, Board Director Lindsay Taylor, Township of Lower Merion Lisa Thomas, RLA, AICP, LEED, AP, Board Director/Property Committee Chair Harriet Wentz, Eco Design and Management
GRAPHICS, LAYOUT AND COVER DESIGN: BARBARA SIEGEL RYAN
Updated Master Site Development Plan Riverbend Environmental Education Center August 2010
Contents 1. Introduction 2. Orientation & Data Collection 3. Evaluation, Issues & Goals Identification a. The Natural Site 7 i. Watershed Context 7 ii. Historical Stream Impacts 7 iii. Landscape Zones 13 iv. Site Drainage 18 b. The Institutional Site 21 i. Entry & Identity 21 ii. Circulation 21 iii. Site Features 21 iv. Site Facilities 23 4. Preliminary Master Plan Concept a. Entry & Identity 27 b. Accessibility 27 c. Circulation 27 d. Site Features 27 e. Landscape Features & Edge Conditions 28 f. Service 28 5. Master Plan Development a. Revised Master Plan Concept 31 b. Master Plan Concept – Landscape Zones 41 i. Vegetation 41 ii. Hydrology 43 6. Master Plan Projects a. West Loop 51 b. Ponds 57 7. Final Plans 8. Wayfinding & Interpretation Locations Plan 9. Phasing Plan a. Primary Project Phasing 71 b. In-house & Volunteer Opportunities 72 c. Project Collaboration Opportunities 72
1 5 7
27
31
51
61 67 71
iii
10. Master Plan Elements & Materials Standards a. Site Construction 75 b. Planting Improvements 76 11. Management Guidelines a. Zone 1 Managed Woodland 79 b. Woodland Buffer 81 c. Old Field Succession 83 d. Sheep Meadow 85 e. Bluebird Meadow 85 f. Aquatic Pond & Stream System 87 g. Stream Access & Stabilization 89 12. Cost Estimates 13. Meeting Notes 14. Appendix a. Available Documents Listing 127 b. Visual Assessment of Saw Mill Run at Riverbend Environmental Education Center 129 i. Existing Conditions 129 ii. Typical Issues 130 iii. Consideration for Drainage Improvements along Saw Mill Run 131 c. Saw Mill Run Stream Restoration 137 i. Background Information 137 ii. Visual Geomorphic Assessment 137 iii. Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis 137 d. Forest Stewardship Questionnaire 139 e. Forest Stewardship Management 149 iv. Visual Assessment 149 v. Site Description 149 vi. Stewardship Objectives 149 vii. Recommendations 150 f. Integrated Pest Management Principles 153 g. Illustration Source Notes 157
75
79
93 105 127
1. Introduction The Institution Riverbend Environmental Education Center provides an environmental learning resource for children and families in Southeastern Pennsylvania and stewards a thirty acre preserve featuring diverse landscapes and wildlife. Riverbend offers on-site educational programs and is open to the surrounding community. Off-site educational programs and facilities rentals round out the current roster of institutional programs and activities. While Riverbend has steadily implemented program and facilities improvements over the years, it is far from tapping the full potential of its site. The assets inherent in the rich history and natural character of Riverbend’s site are simultaneously challenged by the damaging presence of deer and incursion of invasive plant species. The site’s topography offers unusually dramatic views, yet it conveys sound from adjacent development which interrupts the serenity of the natural environment and can interfere with on-site educational programs. Site topography also presents a challenge to siting and providing access to educational features and facilities. Institutional Planning and Development A 10-year plan for the entire Riverbend property – Riverbend Master Site Development Plan – was adopted in 2004. It was the goal of that plan to ‘produce a plan that harmonizes wildlife habitat protection with programmatic uses’. The plan addressed Riverbend’s 30-acre wildlife habitat, its facilities, and its programs. Key elements of the plan included facilities improvements such as gateway and parking facilities and perimeter deer fencing, site features, and recommendations for environmental restoration and preservation. The 2004 Master Site Development Plan not only addressed the entire property, but it identified a core of existing and proposed campus activity. Since 2004, key master plan recommendations have been implemented. Simultaneously, Riverbend has grown significantly as an organization. In 2009, the Board of Directors of Riverbend Environmental Education Center approved a 3-year strategic plan, a revised mission statement, and created a new vision statement. Plans were made to embark on an updated master site development plan to provide for ‘the creation of innovative passive & active open space, guided by our educational goals’. The plan was to focus on the core of the Riverbend campus, a 10-acre area bounded by deer fence. Updated Master Site Development Plan Riverbend Environmental Education Center is unique in its mission and commitment to teaching children through familiarity and delight with the natural environment.
1
Our mission is to teach environmental principles to children through a direct connection with nature, inspiring respect for our natural world, and action as aware, responsible and caring citizens. Riverbend seeks to be recognized as the model environmental learning resource for children in southeastern Pennsylvania, known for our superior educational programs, and as a unique and significant destination.
Taken together, these statements establish a unique point of beginning for a master planning effort. They invite a plan that balances environmental restoration and landscape management with the development of distinctive features and facilities that support the institution’s diversity of programs and uses. They invite a plan that furthers the institutional mission by accommodating beauty, interest, engagement and fun. They invite a plan that reinforces Riverbend as a singular and memorable destination and resource to which visitors will want to return time and again. This kind of vision is useful only to the extent that it is realizable and maintainable. The planning focus must not be fixed solely on innovative approaches, but on appropriate ones. Planning toward the next phase of institutional development must have a solid basis in the reality of available infrastructure, funding, and staffing in order to arrive at recommendations that not only feature and enrich the unique identity of the site and expand the distinctiveness of the institution, but can be successfully realized and maintained. Success will be measured in physical terms in providing for features and facilities that invite exploration and enjoyment of the landscape without incurring damage to sensitive habitats, destroying the site’s unique character, or imposing excessive maintenance requirements. Success will be measured in operational terms insofar as a fit is achieved between plan recommendations and capital and operational resources; as well as a fit between the institution, and its neighborhood and community. The Planning Process It is the intent of this Updated Master Site Development Plan to document not only the plan, but the process of interaction from which it resulted. The planning process proceeded in six primary phases. Orientation & Data Collection Evaluation, Issues & Goals Identification Preliminary Master Plan Concept Master Plan Development Master Plan Projects Implementation Strategies The plan takes a comprehensive approach, addressing key aspects of the site, facilities, and program operation.
Entry/Identity Accessibility Circulation
Site Features Landscape Features & Edge Conditions Service
Beyond the overall plan, two projects were selected to receive additional design consideration. These projects were considered central to the focus of Riverbend programs, and likely candidates for early phase implementation. Intended as a working document to guide incremental improvements to facilities, features, and landscapes, the plan includes not only design recommendations but general strategies and guidelines for eventual implementation of the entire plan.
Wayfinding & Interpretation Phasing Plan Elements & Materials Standards Management Guidelines Cost Estimates
Comprehensive and collaborative in nature, the plan incorporates sufficient flexibility to adapt to the inevitable changes which will accompany the next ten years at Riverbend – including funding allocations, opportunities for project collaborations, and volunteer efforts – without invalidating its overall integrity or the planning process from which it resulted.
3
2. Orientation & Data Collection The master planning process began with an orientation and data collection phase, intended to familiarize the design team with the site, programs, operations, staff and administration. The team gathered and reviewed available documents (see Appendix) pertaining to the planning effort, and conducted a site visit and start-up meeting with key members of staff. Laurie Bachman, Executive Director, served as the project manager and primary point of contact throughout the master planning process. A Master Plan Study Committee was formed to function as the institutional working group. In the early stages of planning and design, additional presentations were made to interested members of the community, to engage their thoughts and support. Both meetings and presentations provided an interactive forum for communication with the master planning team. An important part of the orientation and data collection process were the interviews conducted with selected members of the institution, the local administration, and the surrounding community. Interview questions were directed toward information regarding visitors, programs and operations, and notable aspects of the site. Questions probed for assessment of existing conditions and for perceived opportunities and aspirations for future development. People What is the general size of class groups? What are target age groups? How much is the site used throughout the day/week/year? Scheduled educational events Scheduled rental events Independent visitors Community/Township events How long is the average visit? Is there much repeat visitation? Is current/target visitor local? regional? other? On-Site Program How do you use the site now? What is focus of existing programs at this site? (animals, vegetation, water, soil/geology, sun, wind, energy, sustainability) What features would enhance the educational program? (improved ‘pond’/additional outdoor classrooms/observation areas) Should features be added to enhance rentals? Should features be added to enhance independent visitation? Should temporary exhibits/features be considered? Should there be additional interpretation for independent learning/experience? Site What are general maintenance issues? (staff, budget, volunteers, equipment, access) What are current types and locations of problem plants? What general methods have been used to control invasives/with what success? Where and what kind of issues exist with erosion, flooding, and/or standing water? What kinds of storms cause these problems?
5
Are there existing wildlife issues? Are there existing safety or security issues on site? What detracts from usability of the site? (steep slopes, noise from adjacent uses) What are the most positive/unique features of the site? (views, density and diversity of vegetation, proximity of water) What existing utilities/infrastructure are available? (water, electric, sanitary)
Summary notes of individual meetings and interviews conducted during this phase are included within the appendix. While a significant volume of information was shared, certain responses recurred with sufficient frequency and emphasis as to be identifiable as key.
Children are the target visitors Visibility within the community could be improved Water is one of the best features of the site Addition of deer fence was key to developing the site and educational programs Existing trails (location & condition) should be improved Lenape Village is not well located, and is not a quality construction Solar Hut has limited appeal A larger pond would be a positive addition An overlook to access views across the site would be a positive addition A covered teaching area at the north end of the site would be a positive addition A toilet facility at the north end of the site would be a positive addition The site has unrealized capacity for programs and visitation
3. Evaluation, Issues & Goals Identification The Orientation and Data Collection phase provided a solid foundation upon which to proceed with the planning and design process. Preliminary research was followed by presentation of the team’s evaluation of several aspects of the site. The design team considered Riverbend both in terms of the natural aspects of its landform, drainage, and vegetation, and in terms of the natural and built features that together define its effectiveness as an institution. The Natural Site Watershed Context The Riverbend Environmental Center site is located west of the confluence of Saw Mill Run and the Schuylkill River. Approximately half of the land within the watershed consists of the Philadelphia Country Club with the remaining land in the headwaters and fringes consisting of residential development. Riverbend Environmental Center property is characterized by a high bluff located at a bend in the river with distant views overlooking the Schuylkill River and a wooded ravine to the south with steep slopes leading to Saw Mill Run. Saw Mill Run is a first order tributary to the Schuylkill River (Classified as a warm water fishes stream by Department of Environmental Protection). It is approximately one mile long beginning close to Conshohocken State Road, flowing northeast through the Philadelphia Country Club, and entering Riverbend Environmental Education Center property at the bridge crossing just before the entrance to the parking area. A 400-foot section of the stream flows adjacent to the parking area before entering a culvert where it leaves the property and descends into a steep ravine parallel to an old section of Spring Mill Road. It crosses back onto Riverbend property for approximately 100 feet close to a washed out bridge section before entering a culvert under the Schuylkill Expressway and discharging just beyond into the Schuylkill River. (Fig. 3-1: Watershed Map) Historical Stream Impacts Numerous old maps of the region were collected and provide a snapshot of how the land was used in different time periods. These maps also show how the land was altered with the most clearly defined relationship between old roadways and stream systems, since both provided important routes for transportation. Although the maps of this location do not indicate a clear mill location, it is most likely there was a mill, Saw Mill, within the vicinity of Riverbend along Saw Mill Run. These maps also illustrate the changes in the landscape from pre-settlement, represented by the 1600’s map (Fig. 3-2: Historical Map 1600s) where the streams are represented by meandering corridors within wetland floodplain systems. Post settlement is represented by the 1887 map which includes a ferry crossing, the rail line and political boundaries. (Fig. 3-3: Historical Map 1887) The map from 1942 (Fig. 3-4: Historical Map 1942) shows the addition of more roads and some scattered development. Some of these historic features are still visible along the Saw Mill Run, including the spring house, old roadway and remnants of an old stone foundation or dam.
7
Fig. 3-1: Watershed Map: Saw Mill Run Drainage Area - LandStudies
Fig. 3-2: Historical Map 1600s – Lower Merion Historical Society
9
Fig. 3-3: Historical Map 1887- Lower Merion Historical Society
Fig. 3-4: Historical Map 1942 - Lower Merion Historical Society
Historical mill dams have had one of the greatest influences on the current conditions of most streams and floodplains in this area, but there are other ways in which we’ve used the land that have led to problems. Because stream valleys in their original condition (Fig. 3-5: Historic Floodplain Conditions), were extremely fertile, they were prime targets for farming and settlements.
Fig. 3-5: Historic Floodplain Conditions - LandStudies
Over the years, we redirected streams, drained wetlands and removed vegetation. (Figs. 3-6, 3-7, 3-8: Historic Clearing) We built railroads, roads, and bridges, often following the paths of streams. Buildings and, more recently, parking lots have imposed on stream systems, too. These activities have contributed to unnatural (and therefore unstable) streams in the wrong locations and often without their natural floodplains and wetlands. Many people are surprised to learn that streams are supposed to flood. When there is high flow from rain or snow melt, stable, shallow streams flood quickly, spilling their excess water onto the porous, organic soils of the wetland-pocketed floodplain, where much of it eventually finds its way down to groundwater. Unfortunately, few of our streams are stabilized by a connection to the floodplain. Consequently, most floods are not beneficial. Our historical and contemporary land use has changed the natural configuration of stream systems. We have moved stream channels, drained wetlands, built dams, installed roads and bridges in the wrong places and positions, encroached on floodplains, and paved over the soil. The following pictures illustrate how the resultant problems— especially damaging flooding caused by channel constrictions, misdirected flow, excessive deposition, dams and legacy sediment, and erosion— have severely impacted Saw Mill Run at the Riverbend site. (Figs. 3-9, 3-10: Evidence of Historic Uses)
11
The profound damage caused by early, widespread logging and land clearing are evident in these old photographs.
Fig. 3-7
Figs. 3-6, 3-7, 3-8: Historic Clearing - Douglas Macneal, A Penns Creek Companion
Existing mill house at the stream edge, no severe down-cutting along Saw Mill Run adjacent to this structure.
Remnants of a dam, wall or foundation perpendicular to Saw Mill Run downstream from the mill house.
Figs. 3-9, 3-10: Evidence of Historic Uses
Landscape Zones (Fig. 3-11: Landscape Zones) à Active Use / Improved Zones – The landscape areas associated with the active use areas on the site are the most maintenance intensive of the property. The two primary active use areas include the landscape areas around the Activities Hub (barn, picnic/ gathering, restrooms, service, spring house, outdoor classroom, and bird observation area) and the Lenape Village. Outside of the bird observation area, the current landscaping in the Active Use / Improved Zones consists of maintained lawn, invasive plant management and minimal planting.
13
Fig. 3-11: Landscape Zones - LandStudies
à
Managed Understory Zone – This zone represents the forest understory in which a Habitat Restoration Strategy has been implemented by Riverbend staff under the direction of Chris Wales utilizing an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach. IPM is an environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that relies on a combination of understanding the life cycle of pests and their interaction with the environment. Further information regarding Integrated Pest Management Principles is outlined in the appendix. The goal of this effort is to provide a demonstration to explore successful IPM strategies in a controlled location for the purpose of developing a more extensive management of invasive plant species on the site. This site was selected because of its proximity to the active use areas and visibility for monitoring purposes. The following outlines the schedule of management tasks and planting that have been implemented to date:
Habitat Restoration Schedule of Tasks October 2007 - Initial herbicide application of the hillside May 2008- Follow up spraying of herbicide on the hillside June - September 2008 - Hand pulling of invasive plants (mile-a-minute, garlic mustard) September 2008 - Installation of 50 native tree species (chestnut oak, red maple, sugar maple, white oak, American beech, shagbark hickory, Mockernut hickory). Trees were caged using steel wire cages secured to the ground with 2-foot sections of rebar. October 2008 - March 2009 - Monitoring of plants. Replaced cages as needed and removed any invasive exotic plants by hand. April 2009 - Installed 25 eastern redbud and 25 arrowwood viburnum seedlings on the site. Seedlings were not caged due to cost restrictions. All seedlings were marked with orange pin flags so they could be located and cared for. May - August 2009 - Routine maintenance of site. This included spot spraying for mile-a-minute using Round Up Pro and basal bark applications of Garlon 4 on ailanthus trees. Volunteers were used to hand pull mile-aminute and garlic mustard. Cages were checked frequently to ensure they were still in place and to remove any vines that had grown up them. Some pruning of the caged trees was also required. September 2009 - Installation of 100 native trees (chestnut oak, sugar maple, red maple, American beech, Allegheny serviceberry, hop hornbeam). Due to cost restrictions not all trees were caged. Those that were not were marked with orange pin flags. Spring 2010 - Collected seeds from plants in the bird observation garden that are commonly found in the forest understory were spread in the restoration areas as a potential method to encourage re-growth.
The management strategy includes two initial herbicide applications - one fall and one in the spring - followed by continued spot spraying and hand grubbing of invasive exotic species. This approach seems to be working and the re-growth of invasive exotics is becoming less prevalent. Native tree seedlings were successfully introduced one year after the initial herbicide application. The success of the seedling planting is due to consistent maintenance by Riverbend staff to keep competition under control, the inclusion of wire cages to protect individual seedlings to allow spraying for invasive species close to the tree plantings and consistent rain during the fall and spring of 2008/2009. Methods of watering and labor for monitoring and maintenance on future management areas should be a high priority to ensure success. The following photos show the existing condition resulting from the Habitat Restoration efforts in comparison to surrounding forest understory: (Figs. 3-12, 3-13: Habitat Management Area)
15
Fig. 3-12, 3-13: Habitat Management Area
à Cleared and Mowed Open Areas - Many of the open and understory areas have been maintained by mowing because of the extent and intensity of invasive exotic plant species that can both re-grow from existing root systems and reestablish from seed blown in from surrounding areas. Volunteers have been available to mow, and it has been a good approach to controlling invasives until more organized and labor intensive efforts can be applied. The areas which have been mow-managed were not seeded or planted prior to clearing and mowing. Volunteers mow these areas on a weekly basis during the spring and periods of wet weather and less often later in the growing season and during periods of drought. (Fig. 3-14: Mowed Open Area) à Forest Understory with Deer Browsing - Fencing has been installed and maintained around the perimeter of a ten acre active use area on the Riverbend property. A Fig. 3-14: Mowed Open Area 14-acre area to the northeast of the site along with steep slopes to the south and west of the fenced area are characterized by vegetation that has been overgrazed by deer. Most of the mature woodland groundcover is a mat of Akebia, and the only vegetation which has remained are significantly large trees and canopy out of reach to the deer. Little to no regeneration of native plant species is possible because of competition from aggressive non-native species and deer browsing. Although these forest areas are in very poor health from a bio-diversity perspective, the clearing does provide visual access to these wooded areas and easy access by staff and hikers. (Fig. 3-15: Deer Browsed Understory)
Forest Understory without Deer The forest understory within the fenced area, which have not been deer browsed or maintained either by mowing or herbicide application, is in very poor health because of the proliferation of uncontrolled invasive exotic plant species. The following general observations were made during site visits of invasive exotic species which are particularly evident within the fenced area where deer have not browsed. A Forest Stewardship Questionnaire was completed and is included. (Appendix Forest Stewardship Questionnaire)
Fig. 3-15: Deer Browsed Understory
In areas where there has been some cutting/clearing, there is evidence of heavy encroachment from Ailanthus altissima. The most prevalent invasive species present on the entire property is Akebia quinata. Also present is multiflora rose, Japanese honeysuckle, porcelain berry, tearthumb vine, Oriental bittersweet, Japanese knotweed, and some Norway maple. The extent of invasive species cover is heaviest in any of the areas that are not mowed or managed. The older woody species composition is primarily composed of sassafras, white ash, (which is in decline) tulip poplar, black cherry, black locust, walnut, and other pioneer species. The general health and conditions of these young successional woodlands are fair to poor. (Fig. 3-16: Understory within Fenced Area) à Cool Season Grass Meadow The Bluebird Meadow is a cool season grass meadow area that is maintained by mowing once or twice a year. The diversity is limited to the cool season grasses and invasive exotic plant species which are controlled by hand grubbing and spot spraying. (Fig. 3-17: Bluebird Meadow)
Fig. 3-16: Understory within Fenced Area
Fig. 3-17: Bluebird Meadow
17
à
Site Drainage The Riverbend site is characterized by a high bluff overlooking the Schuylkill River to the north and the ravine of Saw Mill Run on the east. The land on the upper field at the high point of the site is the flattest portion of the site and slopes gradually and becomes steeper as the site falls toward Saw Mill Run to the south and the Schuylkill River to the north. The site drainage is closely related to the topography and soil conditions. Geology – Precambrian gneiss – thin surface layer of humic topsoils underlain by weathered and fractured rock over non-rippable gneissic bedrock. Depth to the bedrock averages approximately 15 feet. (Riverbend Master Site Development Plan, June 2004) Soils – The hilltop and meadow soils consist of Glenelg Silty Loam which is a well drained and moderately erodible soil with good depth to bedrock. The hillside on the northern end of the property adjacent to the Schuylkill River is classified as Manor Very Stony Silty Loam which is well drained, but with a shallow depth to bedrock, includes many loose stones and is moderately erodible. The ravine adjacent to Saw Mill Creek is Manor Channery Silty Loam which is well drained with moderate depth to bedrock and contains small boulders and cobbles. (Riverbend Master Site Development Plan, June 2004)
Fig. 3-18: Drainage Analysis – LandStudies
Stormwater Run-off - The majority of stormwater run-off from the site is sheet flow from the ridges and high points with the flow and velocity dictated by the vegetative cover. Areas of forested cover and vegetated understory reduce run-off rates and erosion. The quantity and velocity of stormwater run-off increases as the type of vegetated cover thins in the meadow and lawn areas. The diagram indicates locations where some channeling and erosion were observed toward the center of the site from the upper pond past the Bird Observation Area and down through the ravine into Saw Mill Run. (Fig. 3-18: Drainage Analysis) à Saw Mill Run - The most significant drainage issues are related to constrictions in the stream causing high flows during storm events. Overflows at the bridge culvert at the pedestrian entrance to Riverbend combined with sheet flows from the site contribute to significant erosion and flows along the old road bed at the base of the slope adjacent to Saw Mill Run. Efforts have been made to create swales to divert these flows into Saw Mill Run to minimize damage to the road bed. A large deposition zone has developed between Saw Mill Run and the old road bed, adding to the containment of storm flows on the road bed. Erosion and stream related drainage issues are discussed further in the Visual Assessment of Saw Mill Run at Riverbend Environmental Center, included in the appendix. Saw Mill Run adjacent to the parking area is the most stable section of the stream within Riverbend property. The backwater elevation and degree of downcutting is controlled by the culvert size and location. The stream reach from the culvert upstream to the bridge crossing at the entrance to the parking lot is easily accessible and suitable for educational purposes. Access to the entire riparian Figs. 3-19, 3-20: Saw Mill Run at the edge has compacted soils and limited Parking Area plant growth. The bend in the stream just before the culvert and pedestrian bridge is exhibiting some downcutting and will continue to erode toward the parking lot and stormwater infiltration beds. Stabilization efforts should concentrate on the lower section of the reach while access should be well defined and limited to strategic locations along upper sections of the reach. Additional vegetation, with stabilizing root systems, will also provide water quality benefits within the riparian zone. (Figs. 3-19, 3-20: Saw Mill Run at the Parking Area)
19
à
Ponds - There are three artificial ponds created on the site. Frog Pond or Lower Pond is located in Bluebird Meadow and consists of a 30-foot diameter, plastic lined pond with a rock edge and non-native plant species. This pond is fed by stormwater run-off from the site and does not have a consistent water source or aeration to keep the water clear. Toads, frogs and insects are present, and the pond provides an educational resource.
Dragonfly Pond or Upper Pond is located at the high point of the site, southwest of the solar hut. This pond is also 30 feet in diameter and lined with plastic with a rock edge and nonnative plant species. The pond is in full sun and is fed by stormwater run-off and does not have a consistent water source or aeration to keep the water clear. This pond often goes dry during periods of drought. Overflow from this pond Fig. 3-21: Dragonfly Pond contributes to erosion downhill from the pond and contributes to a drainage swale running downhill toward the ravine and Saw Mill Run past the Bird Observation area. (Fig. 3-21: Dragonfly Pond) Bird Observation Area Water Feature is an integrated component of the garden. The water feature is intended as a protected source of water for birds. It is fed with rainwater collected from the Outdoor Classroom roof and stored in a rain barrel. A back-up water source is also available to maintain water levels and a waterfall and pump is provided for aeration. This water feature appears to be functioning well.
The Institutional Site Four overarching aspects of Riverbend were assessed with respect to its current effectiveness and future potential as an institutional site. Taken together, these aspects affect not only the visitor experience but the internal capacity for maintenance and development of the physical institution.
Entry & Identity There is only one chance to make a first impression. Institutional entry and identity are key for any institution. They are particularly important at Riverbend, where the majority of features and programs are not immediately adjacent to guest parking. The approach to Riverbend along Spring Mill Road is characterized by vegetation thickly blanketed by invasive vines. The parking area itself does not engage the visitor or present itself clearly as part of the Riverbend experience, though educational programs are conducted at the stream adjacent to it. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation are not distinguished from one another. The walk from the parking lot to the barn and the heart of the site is steep.
Circulation Riverbend is characterized by steep slopes. In many areas, negotiating paths throughout the site is made more difficult still by proximity of walnut trees whose liberal deposits of fruit pose a significant slip/trip hazard. Existing path conditions make access for service and maintenance difficult. Current paths provide access to most areas of the site; some continue beyond the site to link with a community trail system. Many sections of path are located adjacent to the perimeter deer fence. Lack of perimeter vegetation along significant sections of these paths weakens the sense of enclosure and of the Riverbend experience.
Site Features Several aspects of the Riverbend site make it a compelling environment for educational programs. à
Sound Three sounds are strongly and consistently present at Riverbend. Exiting the car at the parking lot, one is immediately aware of the sound of leaves rustling in the surrounding canopy of trees. The sound of the Saw Mill Run is also identifiable here, and along Spring Mill Road to the southeast. Traffic noise from the Schuylkill Expressway below Riverbend to the northeast is persistent and intrusive in its volume, particularly at lower elevations.
à
Vegetative Enclosure Dense stands of deciduous canopy trees characterize much of Riverbend’s site. Among these, a small grove of sassafras trees on upper elevations at the southwest edge of the property is particularly distinctive. Staff and volunteers are engaged in a struggle to control invasive species, particularly vines and groundcover which persist throughout the site. A prominent area currently being reclaimed from invasive vegetation
21
is located at the heart of the site, immediately adjacent to the outdoor classroom. à
Diversity of Spaces Riverbend is situated in a woodland context, with dense stands of deciduous canopy trees located from the southwest, to the east and north, terminating in additional wooded acreage outside the deer fence to the northwest. The heart of the Riverbend site is characterized by generally open, south-facing slopes at the higher elevations of the property.
à
Views Riverbend’s topography affords long views across the valley to the northeast. These views are not uniformly available, due to the presence of dense vegetation. Conversely, lack of vegetation along long sections of the site perimeter weakens a sense of enclosure by clear visual access to adjacent residential properties to the northwest, and to the Schuylkill Expressway to the northeast.
à
Water Saw Mill Run drains to the Schuylkill River. Currently, however, Riverbend is separated from the river by the presence of the Schuylkill Expressway and the railroad bed. A large culvert conveying the Saw Mill Run beneath this construction can be negotiated by foot in low flow conditions. This route is not suitable for regular safe pedestrian access to the river. Though a significantly smaller body of water, Saw Mill Run is more readily accessible from Riverbend. Although it is largely located outside Riverbend property boundaries, points of access are available at the parking lot, and below site, near the culvert connecting Saw Mill Run with the river. Saw Mill Run currently is a significant attraction and the focus of a number of Riverbend educational programs. Frog Pond and Dragonfly Pond are located on upper elevations near the center of the property. Many programs are conducted at these ponds, though they are small and evidently constructed features.
à
Wildlife There is a limited presence of wildlife throughout the varying environments available on the property. These include birds; reptiles and amphibians; and small mammals such as raccoon, fox, groundhog, squirrel and chipmunk.
à
Structural History The long lines of dry laid stone walls are prominent, particularly at the center of the property. Dating from the Civil War era when local land was leased from local farmers to provide transitional housing for soldiers released from southern prison camps, these walls add a rich aesthetic and historical element to the property. A similar element, though of
unknown origin, is provided by a small stone foundation located just above Saw Mill Run at the entry to Riverbend.
Site Facilities à
Barn The Snider Barn, a renovated 1923 Sears, Roebuck Catalog barn, is the hub of Riverbend activity. Distinctive in its design, it provides a strong visual identity for the institution. Currently it houses offices, classrooms, and visitor services including restroom and a small picnic area. Immediately adjacent to it, a covered outdoor classroom and the recently completed Bird Observation Area, reinforce this institutional core.
à
Facilities Attractions Currently, facilities attractions at Riverbend are relatively small and scattered features. The Lenape Village at lower elevation at the northeast perimeter of the site is remote from the general hub of institutional activity. It is located fully within the ‘sound shed’ of traffic noise from the expressway. The Solar Hut, a small structure toward the center of the site, accommodates few visitors simultaneously and provides limited attraction or instruction. A bee hive and adjacent planting to attract butterflies, though located close to other site features, is nearly unidentifiable within the context of dense adjacent vegetation. A small picnic grove and a firepit are located adjacent to the existing camping site on upper elevations at the north end of the property.
à
Service Building The existing service building is located below the Barn, adjacent to Saw Mill Run. This location readily accommodates vehicular access, but is remote from most areas of the Riverbend property, both in terms of distance and vertical grade change. Particularly given the site topography, this imposes a burden on maintenance activities. There is a small area adjacent to the service building for stockpiling and unprotected storage of materials.
à
Overhead Utilities Overhead electric lines run from Spring Mill Road into the Riverbend site at the entry gate below the Barn. These lines continue north to connect with adjacent residential properties. The lines are visible from the Barn and center of the site, and detract from its natural character.
à
Deer Fence Deer fence surrounds approximately ten acres which are the core of Riverbend activities and programs. Addition of the deer fence has contributed to the success of ongoing efforts to eradicate invasive vegetation and preserve and restore native woodland plantings.
23
.
4. Preliminary Master Plan Concept A preliminary master plan concept emerged from the initial stages of orientation and assessment of the site and its operations. The preliminary plan established the foundation of a proposal intended to maximize Riverbend’s potential with improvements that were both realizable and maintainable. The plan offered a layered design approach addressing key aspects of the site.
Entry & Identity à Establish a vegetative restoration zone for 200 feet along Spring Mill Road, to clearly designate a gateway to Riverbend. à Establish a Zone 1 Managed Woodland planting at the Riverbend entry and parking lot. This planting is intended as a signature landscape treatment for areas of high visitor circulation. It is intended both as an aesthetic improvement and a clear demonstration of Riverbend’s environmental philosophy. à Redefine and stabilize stream access within the parking lot. Redirect pedestrian traffic along vulnerable, eroded streambanks. à Redefine the parking lot as the introduction to the visitor’s experience. Create an Observation Post feature at the existing stone foundations adjacent to the parking lot.
Accessibility à Moderate slope changes along the visitor route between the parking lot and the Barn. Elevate the pedestrian bridge at Saw Mill Run. Introduce a series of ramps and landings between the pedestrian bridge and the Barn. Circulation à Realign paths within the core of Riverbend to reduce travel between extreme high and low site elevations and introduce buffer space adjacent to perimeter fences. Maximize path alignments parallel to site slopes.
Site Features à Increase West Loop Attractions/Expand Existing Facilities Hub Picnic Grove West Sequence Over, Under, Around & Through – Mounds, Tunnels, Bridges Weaver’s Way – Nests, Hives, Burrows
Water Terrace
Ponds relocation & improvement
Lenape Village
Relocation & improvement
Sheep Meadow à
Amphitheater Ruin
Increase East Loop Attractions Boulders & Bugs Boulders, Fallen Logs, Fernery
Earth, Wind & Fire
27
Kinetic Garden Solar, Wind, Geothermal Display
Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse Overlook, Outdoor Classroom, Composting Toilet Camping Well, Rainwater Collection
Cultivation & Compost
Native Plant Nursery, Site Composting Bioswale, Stormwater Cistern
Landscape Features & Edge Conditions à Woodland Buffer Complete vegetative site enclosure à Sassafras Grove Access view across valley à Old Field Succession Planting Buffer overhead utility lines Increase wildlife habitat à Reclamation Demonstration Expand & interpret reclamation area Incorporate future feature garden à Bluebird Meadow Incorporate Meadow Maze Incorporate Beehives & Butterfly Planting à Future Phase Collaborations Restore Wet Meadow along Saw Mill Run above connection with Schuylkill River Accommodate safe pedestrian access to the Schuylkill River
Service à Add decentralized Storage Stations Reclamation Demonstration Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse Cultivation & Compost
5. Master Plan Development Review and discussion of the details of the preliminary master plan directed revisions and refinements. Particular consideration was given to site slopes and their impact on proposed improvements, including sizing of proposed feature areas. The revised master plan concept was presented with an associated plan detailing proposed landscape zones. This plan outlined an approach to vegetation and hydrology across the ten acre focus area. Revised Master Plan Concept
Riverbend Entry à Establish a vegetative restoration zone for 200 feet along Spring Mill Road, to clearly designate a gateway to Riverbend. à Establish a Zone 1 Managed Woodland planting at the Riverbend entry and parking lot. This planting is intended as a signature landscape treatment for areas of high visitor circulation. It is intended both as an aesthetic improvement and a clear demonstration of Riverbend’s environmental philosophy. à Provide two stream access ports to control pedestrian traffic along vulnerable streambanks 8’x10’decking, Trex Accents, Winchester Gray + EcoTuf coating for slip resistance à Redefine and stabilize stream access within the parking lot. Redirect pedestrian traffic along vulnerable, eroded streambanks. à Elevate a pedestrian bridge at Saw Mill Run to moderate slope changes along the pedestrian entry route. 6’x30’ wood camber bridge w/rail, Cedar Forest Products à Redefine the parking lot as the introduction to the visitor’s experience. Create an Observation Post feature at the existing stone foundations adjacent to the parking lot. 8’x10’ deck, Trex Accents, Winchester Gray Increase West Loop Attractions/Expand Existing Facilities Hub à Maintain existing Facilities Hub Barn Restrooms Outdoor Classroom Bird Observation Area & Deck à Create Sitewide Nesting Trail Birdhouses, Nesting Boxes, Bat Houses, Butterfly Houses Incorporate Student & Artist Installations à Over, Under, Around & Through Mounds, Tunnels, Bridges ‘Canopy shrub’ planting groves – Rhododendron maximum, Sumac à Weaver’s Way – Nests, Hives, Burrows, Environmental Art à Sassafras Grove Incorporate Crow’s Nest Lookout for valley views
31
à
Lenape Village Relocation & Improvement Long House 6’x25’x8’height Safari Thatch over wood structure Wikiup 6’diameter 5’height Safari Thatch over wood pole structure 20 5’ backless benches à Natural Playscape Children’s play area Adjacent picnic area and sheep meadow for active play on open south facing slope à Reclamation Demonstration Expand & interpret existing reclamation area Accommodate future feature garden Improve West Site Circulation à Introduce mid-slope pedestrian path à Provide alternate access to West Sequence and Lenape Village à Improve pedestrian circulation with path alignments/realignments that reduce and/or minimize steep slopes. Existing slopes of 30-35% proposed to be eased to 15-20% perpendicular to the slope, and 2-8% parallel to the slope. Provide centralized tool storage at Facilities Hub à 10’x15’single story wood structure Increase East Loop Attractions à Boulders & Bugs Boulders, Fallen Logs, Fernery Accommodate program focus on geology & soils à Ponds Realign Deer Fence to access additional site area with moderate slopes Stabilize historic site walls Provide ponds to accommodate two simultaneous groups Incorporate Living Bridge across stormwater swale as gateway feature à Pavilion Covered Outdoor Classroom x 20’x20’ Open Wood Structure Enclosed Composting Toilets (2) Well Firepit & Story Circle x Amphitheater stone seating x 3 concentric 15” high stone risers @40’ + 3’ turf tread x Seed to fine fescue Maintain/improve existing campsite x Remove existing groundcover + limited removal of shrubs x Seed to fine fescue
à
Bluebird Meadow Incorporate Meadow Maze Incorporate Beehives & Butterfly Planting à Cultivation & Compost Native Plant Nursery x Clear 50’x100’ plot + amend soil to 8” minimum depth Site Composting x Clear 25’x100’ compost row x Relocate existing bins from parking lot Stone Swale Overflow Connection with Ponds x 200’x3’x6” depth x River rock surface over woven geotextile Stormwater Pool to harvest upslope site stormwater x 20’x60’ with waterproof liner Improve East Site Circulation à Improve pedestrian circulation with path alignments/realignments that reduce and/or minimize steep slopes. Existing slopes of 18-20% proposed to be eased to 12-15% perpendicular to the slope, and 2-10% parallel to the slope. Future Phase Collaborations à Restore Wet Meadow along Saw Mill Run above connection with Schuylkill River à Accommodate safe pedestrian access to the Schuylkill River
33
Concept Images
Figs. 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5:
NESTING BOXES
Fig. 5-6: ‘CANOPY SHRUB’ RHODODENDRON
Fig. 5-7: TOPIARY HUT
Fig. 5-8: RABBIT BURROW
37
Fig. 5-9: SPIDER WEB
Fig. 5-10: WASP NEST
Fig. 5-11: SUMMER PALACE – Patrick Dougherty Art Installation
Fig. 5-12: CROW IN NEST
Fig. 5-13: POND EDGE
Fig. 5-14: ROCK FALLS
Fig. 5-15: ROCK SWALE
Fig. 5-16: LIVING BRIDGE
39
Fig. 5-17: AMPHITHEATER
Fig. 5-18: AMPHITHEATER
Master Plan Concept – Landscape Zones
Vegetation The master plan addresses the management of vegetation on site to reinforce the natural site character, to create and reinforce site attractions, to increase wildlife habitat, and to stabilize vulnerable site slopes. Consideration is given to key areas outside the limits of the existing deer fence, as well as the ten acres bounded by it. Master plan proposals assume that a regular regimen of maintenance and repair of the existing deer fence will be continued in order that the success of current reclamation efforts can be continued and expanded. à
Unmanaged Woodland Areas outside the deer fence are, in the main, proposed to remain as unmanaged woodland.
à
Entry Restoration Zone A restoration zone is proposed at the Riverbend entry to increase institutional visibility and aesthetics, and to strengthen institutional identity. The extent of invasive exotic vines and plants along Spring Mill Road approaching the entrance to Riverbend both provides a poor entry experience and misrepresents Riverbend’s approach to native plants and natural ecosystems. As these areas fall outside of Riverbend property, a comprehensive effort to remove invasive plants, open views into the valley, and improve the health of the adjacent forest could involve coordination with the Township and neighboring property owners. The effort could start with manually cutting vines and painting the stubs with herbicide to reduce the growth. A more aggressive approach could include the use of a forestry mower or large equipment to physically remove invasive plants. The approach must include follow-up spraying, planting, seeding and continued management over a period of time until the area can sustain a diverse, native plant community. New planting within this area should be selected for demonstrated resistance to damage from deer.
à
Zone 1 Managed Woodland Zone 1 Managed Woodland is proposed as a highly visible signature native landscape in high circulation areas. This landscape treatment is envisioned as a key component of the visitor experience which begins in the parking lot.
à
Reclamation Demonstration Areas currently undergoing preservation and restoration efforts are proposed to be maintained and expanded as an environmental and educational resource immediately adjacent to the Zone 1 Managed Woodland.
à
Woodland Buffer A continuous woodland buffer is proposed along the length of the deer fence. Planting improvements would include removal of invasive vines
41
and shrubs and replanting to close gaps which have been created in Riverbend’s woodland context. Special attention should be given to areas adjacent to the Schuylkill Expressway, in the interest of buffering not only views but sound. à
Old Field Succession An old field succession planting is proposed to reduce the prominence of existing overhead utility lines which currently dominate a central area of the site. Strategically sited across from the Barn, this planting will not only increase the diversity of vegetated environments on site, but will increase available wildlife habitats.
à
Pond Planting Consolidation of Riverbend’s ponds provides the opportunity to develop an associated planting. Pond planting will provide a key visual focus on site, increase the diversity of vegetated environments which can be featured in the educational program and which can provide wildlife habitats.
à
Sheep Meadow The master plan proposes to reduce or eliminate conventional turf within the site, in order to reduce the maintenance associated with it. Where open turf areas are incorporated, they are proposed to be planted with fine fescues. Fine fescues are shade tolerant, have good drought resistance, and can be maintained with a less frequent mowing cycle than required by standard turf.
à
Bluebird Meadow Improvements proposed for the Bluebird Meadow include expansion, selective removal of invasive vegetation, and planting improvements to increase meadow quality and aesthetics. The plan proposes the beehives and butterfly planting be relocated as part of the expansion of Bluebird Meadow.
à
Wet Meadow Restoration of a wet meadow along Saw Mill Run above its connection with the Schuylkill River is proposed as a future phase collaboration or grant funded project. Although this area falls outside the ten acre master plan site, as well as outside Riverbend property, it is included within the plan because of the importance of stabilizing this highly eroded stream corridor, and providing a unique environmental, educational, and aesthetic resource for Riverbend. In concept, the project would involve re-grading to remove the existing aggradation area, provide flood storage and a wetland condition, and offer opportunities for environmental education. Re-grading would redirect flow toward the stream instead of along the parallel road bed. Re-grading and excavation of accumulated deposition would result in stabilization of the area adjacent to the stream, increased flood storage
volume, and improved capacity to manage large storm events. Ideally, it would reduce damage from erosion and continued downcutting. Extra soil generated by re-grading/excavation could be used to supplement existing shallow soil cover upslope, improving conditions for vegetative cover and reducing run-off and erosion.
Hydrology The master plan addresses the management of stormwater on site to promote control of erosion on steep slopes; infiltration to recharge groundwater and improve the health of vegetation in upslope areas; and harvesting to create site amenities and enrich habitat for wildlife. à Stormwater Collection & Conveyance Grass Swale The plan proposes installation of grass swales upslope of new pedestrian pathways. The swales are intended to intercept stormwater as it travels downslope, and convey it to designated collection areas. Stormwater would be piped beneath pathways where necessary. Stormwater Pools Teaching Ponds New ponds are proposed to be lined, and to be filled with site stormwater. Irrigation Pool An irrigation pool is proposed adjacent to the proposed nursery site. Located at lower elevations, this pool would serve as a final point of stormwater collection, and would provide a source of water to support limited cultivation activities. Stormwater Swale Within the eastern portion of the site, a stone stabilized stormwater swale is proposed to conduct site water from the upper elevations of the teaching ponds to the lower elevations of the irrigation pool. à Stormwater Infiltration Level Spreader Within the western portion of the site, a level spreader is proposed within the old field succession area to recharge the water table and support vegetation in upslope areas, as well as to reduce stormwater erosion at vulnerable steep slopes adjacent to Saw Mill Run.
43
Concept Images
Fig. 5-20: RECLAMATION DEMONSTRATION
Fig. 5-21: WOODLAND BUFFER
47
Figs. 5-22, 5-23, 5-24: OLD FIELD SUCCESSION
Fig. 5-25: BLUEBIRD MEADOW
Fig. 5-26: WET MEADOW
49
6. Master Plan Projects Two areas of the plan were developed beyond the master plan concept level, considering layout, grading and materials in closer detail. West Loop Layout & Grading à A combination of path and steps is proposed to reduce the steepness of path slopes. à Grass swales are proposed upslope of paths to reduce stormwater erosion. à Level spreaders are proposed to distribute harvested stormwater and recharge the upslope water table. 30’ length with 6” riser connector pipes @ pathways Features Proposed features were developed from original master plan concepts ‘Over, Under, Around, & Through’ and ‘Weavers Way’. Concepts imagine opportunities to illustrate habitats and behaviors from the natural world at a scale engaging to children. à Nesting Trail Introduced at key intersections along the path system Birdhouses, Nesting Boxes, Bat Houses, Butterfly Houses Incorporate Student & Artist Installations à Burrow 8’x25’ feature area Topiary Mesh Structure x 4’x15’x5’ height x Galvanized chain link fabric, 11GA, 2” mesh x Vines @ 3’ on center BCI Burke S tunnel + 24” Up-Down Tunnel + Platform Rhododendron maximum grove à Cocoon 8’x25’ feature area 5’x15’x5’height Overlapping sails on steel tube frames x Shade Systems Cool Net Shade Fabric à Woven Art Installation 8’x25’ feature area Artwork (e.g. Patrick Dougherty woven structure) not included à Spiderweb 8’x25’ feature area FIBAR safety surfacing with 6”x6” pressure treated timber edging Landscape Structures Spiderweb Climber Hatteras Hammocks polyester rope hammock @ existing trees à Crow’s Nest Lookout Treehouse @ existing sassafras trees 8’x10’x10’high platform, Trex Accents, Winchester Gray Trex steps, 3’ clear width 42” stainless steel cable guardrails ‘Nest’ cladding, Safari Thatch
51
Illustration: Barbara Siegel Ryan
Fig. 6-2: BURROW
Illustration: Barbara Siegel Ryan
Fig. 6-3: COCOON
55
Illustration: Barbara Siegel Ryan
Fig. 6-4: CROW’S NEST LOOKOUT
Ponds A de-centralized surface drainage system is proposed which utilizes horizontal swales on the up-hill side of the upper trails to harvest stormwater run-off and route it toward a centralized aquatic pond/stream system. This approach captures sheet flow run-off and directs it toward a central location where it is treated to improve water quality and infiltration potential as well as providing educational opportunities. The proposed centralized linear aquatic system includes a series of terraced ponds, a rock waterfall for aeration and wetland filters to treat site run-off. A created swale/stream directs stormwater over-flow in a controlled manner to a level spreader below the main path. The level spreader will disperse overflow run-off to further reduce erosion potential. Turf lawn areas and a rock edge are provided to allow students access to the ponds for educational purposes. A wetland shelf, 6” below the water surface elevation, is proposed to provide a variety of native aquatic emergent species at the pond edge. The sloped areas adjacent to the ponds will be planted with riparian species including a combination of native trees, shrubs and perennials both for aesthetic purposes and to control pedestrian access adjacent to deeper areas of the pond.
Layout & Grading à Realign Deer Fence to access additional site area with moderate slopes +/-350’ feet realignment ranging from 1’-30’ offset à Stabilize historic stone walls (+/-100’) à Regrade area to create accessible routes and promote stormwater harvesting Features Proposed pond features combine aesthetic, environmental, and educational elements, in keeping with the master plan concept. à Nesting Boxes Birdhouses, Nesting Boxes, Bat Houses, Butterfly Houses Incorporate Student & Artist Installations à Upper Pool Collect site stormwater from surface flow Provide adjacent turf gathering area Stabilize pool edge/access with stone (18”x30’) Pool liner,45 mil EPDM( Aquascape Inc) with geotextile underlayment 5’x70’x 6”depth wetland shelf for class access 15’x45’x3’depth pool à Grass Swale Create swale system upslope of paths to promote stormwater harvesting à Middle Pool Collect site stormwater from upper pool and grass swale 10’x30’x3’depth lined pool Riser pipe & 45’ connector à Rock Falls Promote pool aeration
57
à
Lower Pool Accommodate two simultaneous groups Provide adjacent turf gathering area Provide stabilized stone edge for pool access (18”x50’) 5’x90’x6”depth wetland shelf for class access 25’x95’x3’depth lined pool à Recirculation Pump Promote pool aeration between middle and lower pools Solar pump/inverter (convert solar to 120 volts) with battery storage system Aeration windmill system (alternate)à Stone Swale Provide for stabilized overflow 110’x3’x6”depth River rock over woven geotextile à Living Bridge Incorporate pedestrian bridge over stone swale. Create living arch with vegetation tolerant of wet conditions. x 4’x12’ wood camber bridge w/rail, Cedar Forest Products x Salix discolor or S. chaenomeloides @ 5’ on center with training frame à Level Spreader Distribute stormwater overflow to recharge water table upslope 30’ length Planting à Provide planting to enhance ponds as aesthetic focus; support a healthy pond system; provide wildlife habitat; and reduce long term maintenance requirements. Canopy Trees @ 2-2 ½” caliper Understory Trees @ 9-10’ height Shrubs @ 24-30” height Turf seeding with fine fescue à Electric Power Extension of existing power supply to pond area is being investigated independently.
7. Final Plans Final revisions to the master plan and master plan projects include the following: Remove Natural Playscape & associated path and picnic area Relocate Living Bridge within Pond Area, out of primary circulation route Remove the well from the Pavilion Area à Riverbend has determined that a well is not feasible in this location Create a storage area beneath the new deck constructed adjacent to the Barn.
61
8. Wayfinding & Interpretation Locations Plan A locations plan was prepared to establish appropriate siting within the master plan for environmental graphics. The locations plan considered five categories of information: Institutional Identity à The existing sign at Spring Mill Road is well sited and effective. Visitor Orientation à A general orientation map should be included at the parking lot. à A detailed site features map should be introduced at the Barn. Visitor Wayfinding à The plan identifies ten key intersections throughout the site where directional signage will facilitate visitor circulation. Site Features Interpretation à Development of master plan features will provide opportunities for interpretation of Riverbend’s history, vegetation, and educational initiatives. The plan identifies nine key locations where interpretive signage would not only support Riverbend programs, but enhance the experience of the casual visitor. At stream access port, interpret Saw Mill Run and associated planting. At stream access port, interpret Saw Mill Run and Riverbend porous parking lot. At Crow’s Nest Lookout, interpret views across Old Field Succession Planting, and long views across the valley. At Alex Williamson Bird Observation Area, interpret birds and planting. At Reclamation Demonstration area, document and interpret the process of reclamation and restoration of native planting. Interpretation should include images of site conditions prior to reclamation. At Lenape Village, interpret site history and Lenape culture. At Ponds, interpret pond life and planting At Ponds, interpret site stormwater management. At Bluebird Meadow, interpret planting, butterfly traits and habits, and beekeeping. Other categories of signage which should be considered, but are not identified on the plan include: Donor Recognition à Riverbend has an existing standard of bronze plaques. Feature Identification à As the master plan is developed, simple identifications signs could be introduced for features where interpretation is not provided. An environmental graphics designer is to be consulted for design of a full design package for Riverbend.
67
9. Phasing Plan Master plan implementation strategies include prioritization of projects and recommendations for phasing of implementation. Riverbend projects and potential project collaborations identified on the master plan are included. Several master plan improvements, however, could be approached through organized volunteer efforts. These are noted separately. Primary Project Phasing à Construct Ponds and Tool Storage Ponds programs are central to Riverbend operations. Existing facilities are inadequate. More centrally located Tool Storage facilitates maintenance of site improvements. à
Realign Deer Fence & Remove Existing Pond Required to accommodate Ponds improvements
à
Valley View Path Provides central visitor and service access (Entry Gate to Pavilion)
à
Bluebird Meadow/Bees & Butterflies Improve and expand existing central site feature
à
West Loop Circulation Provides improved north/south visitor access to the western portion of the site, and establishes the location of future feature areas.
à
West Loop Projects Install Grass Swales Install Level Spreader Relocate Lenape Village x Location of existing site is remote from core Riverbend facilities and features, and is inadequate for programs due to noise from adjacent traffic Install Feature Areas to improve site attractions and expand program opportunities x Burrow x Cocoon x Spiderweb x Crow’s Nest Lookout
à
Pavilion & Composting Toilets Provide covered teaching space and toilet facilities at the eastern portion of the site.
71
à
Firepit & Story Circle Expand activity center at the eastern portion of the site.
à
Old Field Succession & Sheep Meadow Planting Expand landscape and wildlife features adjacent to the existing Facilities Hub.
à
Parking Lot Improvements Stream Access Ports Zone 1 Managed Woodland
à
Elevated Pedestrian Bridge & Observation Post
à
Cultivation & Compost Path Stormwater Pool & Pond System Connection
In-house & Volunteer Opportunities à West Loop – East/West Path à Old Field Succession Planting – East/West Path à Reclamation Demonstration Area – East/West Path à Incremental Planting Improvements Woodland Buffer x Complete vegetative enclosure along West Loop paths x Complete vegetative enclosure at unbuffered sections of site perimeter Zone 1 Managed Woodland along Valley View path x Increase central site attractions and aesthetics à Incremental Site Improvements Initiate Nesting Trail with volunteer effort and/or student art à Incremental Management Improvements Repair historic stone wall Establish internal site compost operation Initiate nursery planting Project Collaboration Opportunities Future phase projects along the Riverbend property perimeter show promise as collaborations and/or grant funded projects. They offer not only to enrich Riverbend educationally, environmentally, and aesthetically, but hold an aesthetic, recreational and environmental appeal for the neighborhood and local community. à Spring Mill Restoration Zone & Entry Planting à Wet Meadow and River Access
10. Master Plan Elements & Materials Standards Master plan discussions included consideration of materials recommendations to establish standards for general construction. Final recommendations were evaluated in terms of cost; maintainability, particularly relative to available staff and funding; constructability, particularly relative to available access and the character of site topography; and aesthetics appropriate to the site and the Riverbend philosophy. Site Construction Paving à Central Valley View Path 8’ width for primary pedestrian circulation and service/emergency access Stabilizer Solutions x Water activated organic soil stabilizer providing durable, natural, porous aggregate surface x ADA compliant surface Flexi-Pave (alternate) x Constructional paving system binding recycled passenger tires and aggregate in a porous surface à North/South Paths 4’ width with slopes stabilized against erosion Stabilizer Solutions, organic soil stabilizer Flexi-Pave, recycled tire paving system (alternate) à East/West Paths 4’ width Mulch surface Steps à Natural Stone with 6” riser à Log riser with stabilized tread Alternate for low traffic areas Handrails à Rough-hewn timber Shaped with an ax to remove bark & retain natural surface Retaining Walls à Dry laid stone Match stone of existing site walls Firepit & Story Circle à 3 Concentric stone seat walls Match stone of existing site walls 15” risers @ 40’ length 3’ turf treads (fine fescue) Grass Swale à 18”x3” depth à 6” connector pipe beneath paths where required Level Spreader à Plunge pool without longitudinal slope à Level reinforced side release weir
75
à Outfall slope stabilized with woven geotextile and dense vegetation Referenced Products & Manufacturers à Organic Soil Stabilizer, Stabilizer Solutions (www.stabilizersolutions.com) à Recycled Tire Paving System, Flexi-Pave (www.kbius.com) à Recycled Composite Decking, Trex Accents, Winchester Gray (www.trex.com) à Laminated Wood Bridges (www.cedarforestproducts.com) à Tunnel Climbers (www.bciburke.com) à CoolNet Shade Fabric (www.shadesystemsinc.com) à Spiderweb Climber (www.playlsi.com) à Safety Surfacing (www.fibar.com) à Hammock (www.HatterasHammocks.com) à Thatch Materials & Timber Structures (www.safarithatch.com) à Pond Liners (www.aquascapeinc.com) à Solar Water Pumps & Free Air Windmills (www.koenderswindmills.com)
Planting Improvements The master plan also considered an achievable approach to implementing planting improvements. Available funding as well as available staffing for implementation and maintenance suggests the practicality of an incremental approach. A 1000 square foot module – approximately 30’x30’ - was assumed, and a base standard of planting for each of five primary landscape zones was defined. Zone 1 Managed Woodland à Clear vines and invasive groundcover Clearing to include minimum of 2 herbicide applications à Planting 1 deciduous canopy tree, 1 ½”-2” caliper (50’ on center) 3 understory ornamental trees, 7 gallon container (20’ on center) 10 shrubs, 5 gallon container (10’ on center) 111 perennials, landscape plugs (3’ on center)
Woodland Buffer à Clear vines and invasive groundcover Clearing to include minimum of 2 herbicide applications à Planting 1 deciduous canopy tree, 1 ½”-2” caliper (30’ on center) 3 understory ornamental trees, 7 gallon container (20’ on center) 1 evergreen tree, 3 gallon container (40’ on center) 10 shrubs, 5 gallon container (10’ on center)
Old Field Succession à Remove existing groundcover à Selective clearing of invasive trees and groundcover à Planting 1 Evergreen tree, 7 gallon container (50’ on center) Seed with fine fescue, drill seeder Sheep Meadow
à à à
Remove existing groundcover Limited removal of shrubs Seed with fine fescue, drill seeder
Bluebird Meadow à Selective clearing of invasive trees and groundcover à Planting 111 perennials, landscape plugs (3’ on center) ** Clearing to include minimum of two herbicide applications prior to planting
77
11. Management Guidelines The master plan considered management guidelines for primary landscape zones. Management guidelines attached include recommended plant species, and recommendations for implementation and management.
Zone 1 Managed Woodland à Existing Conditions: Thick, non-native understory that obscures views into the woodland area. à Goal: Improve aesthetics and educational value of the woodland area with a diverse selection of lower height, native herbaceous vegetation, and strategically placed shrubs. à Recommended Plant Species Trees and Shrubs Botanical Name Common Name Red Maple Acer rubrum Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Bottlebrush Buckeye Aesculus parviflora Shadblow Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis Smooth Serviceberry Amelanchier laevis Pawpaw Asimina triloba Carolina Allspice Calycanthus floridus Shagbark Hickory Carya ovate Mockernut Hickory Carya tomentosa Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis White Fringetree Chionanthus virginicus Flowering Dogwood Cornus floridus Persimmon Diospyros virginiana Dwarf Witch Alder Fothergilla gardenii Witch Alder Fothergilla major Witchhazel Hamamelis virginiana Wild Hydrangea Hydrangea arborescens Shrubby St. John’s Wort Hypericum prolificum American Holly Ilex opaca Eastern Redcedar Juniperus virginiana Mountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus White Oak Quercus alba Chestnut Oak Quercus prinus Pinxterbloom Azalea Rhododendron periclymenoides Rosebay Rhododendron Rhododendron maximum Fragrant Sumac Rhus aromatica Sassafras Sassafras albidum American Snowbell Styrax americanus Mapleleaf Viburnum Viburnum acerifolium
79
Viburnum prunifolium
Blackhaw Viburnum
Perennials Botanical Name Common Name Wild Columbine Aquilegia canadensis Blue Wood Aster Aster cordifolius White Wood Aster Aster divaricatus Big Leaf Aster Aster macrophyllus Chrysogonum virginianum Golden Star Autumn Fern Dryopteris erythrosora Goldie’s Fern Dryopteris goldiana Eastern Wood Fern Dropteris marginalis Snake Root Eupatorium rugosum Wild Geranium Geranium maculatum Alum Root Heuchera americana Hairy Alum Root Heuchera villosa Woodland Phlox Phlox divaricatus Creeping Phlox Phlox stolonifera Blue-stem Goldenrod Solidago caesia Carolina Lupine Thermopsis villosa Golden Ragwort Senecio aureus Creeping Foam Flower Tiarella cordifolia Grasses and Sedges Botanical Name Common Name Appalachian Sedge Carex appalachia Blue Wood Sedge Carex flaccosperma Pennsylvania Sedge Carex pensylvanica Crinkled Hairgrass Deschampsia flexuosa à Method: 1. Start along high use areas such as walking paths and roads. Delineate planting zones along the high use areas that extend 10’ to 20’ away from the path or road. This can be done using spray paint or wire flags. 2. Eradicate invasive/exotic species from the area before planting. If unwanted plant material is pervasive throughout the majority of the area, use a chemical herbicide applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. If the site is overgrown with vines and invasive exotics, this material must be removed mechanically or by hand while the plants are dormant, and herbicide applied to the new growth at the beginning of the following growing season. The IPM method already being implemented in the Managed Understory Zone, see above, is a good model for this step. 3. Spot till or add soil amendments to the planting area if necessary. 4. Identify locations of proposed plantings within the delineated area. 5. Install plants chosen from list of recommended species at appropriate spacing. a. Plugs: 12” to 18” on center
b. Quarts: 18” to 36” on center c. Shrubs and Trees: Lay out shrubs and trees before planting to be sure important views into the woodland will not be obstructed when plants are full grown. Provide individual tree protection fences for ease of maintenance. à
Maintenance: Years 1 & 2 The first two years are the most critical. The level of maintenance required is directly related to the site conditions at the time of the planting. Three elements of maintenance include watering, fertilization, and invasive weed control. Watering may be necessary during the first year, or during periods of drought. Fertilization should be scheduled in the spring and fall of years one and two, and utilize a slow release product. After the twoyear establishment period, fertilizing should not be needed. The plant species chosen for the project should be well adapted to the site conditions and any changes likely to occur in the years after establishment. Invasive weed control is the most important aspect during this period of time. Consistent monthly monitoring and spot removal of invasive plants may be necessary. This can be done by chemical, mechanical, or manual applications. Herbicide applications are an effective method of woodland restoration and long-term management. These applications must be done by a certified pest control professional. Identification and on-site control methods of invasive species should be coordinated and overseen by the Riverbend property manager or environmental consultant / landscape architect specializing in management of native plant communities. Year 3+ After the first two years the plants should be well established. Monitoring for invasive plants can be done annually. Plants that have been lost or damaged can be replaced during the period.
Woodland Buffer à Existing Conditions: Sporadic trees and maintained lawn or groundcover vegetation. à Goal: Establish a mix of native evergreens, flowering trees, and shrubs as a dense woodland screen to provide seasonal interest and demonstrate an alternative to conventional all evergreen visual screens.
81
à
Recommended Plant Species Trees and Shrubs Botanical Name Common Name Shadblow Serviceberry Amelanchier canadensis Smooth Serviceberry Amelanchier laevis Eastern Redbud Cercis Canadensis White Fringetree Chionanthus virginicus Flowering Dogwood Cornus floridus Wild Hydrangea Hydrangea arborescens Eastern Redcedar Juniperus virginiana Fragrant Sumac Rhus aromatic Blackhaw Viburnum Viburnum prunifolium Mapleleaf Viburnum Viburnum acerifolium
à
Method: 1. Delineate where planting is to occur at property lines adjacent to existing residential homes. This can be done using spray paint or wire flags. 2. Eradicate invasive/exotic species from the area before planting. If unwanted plant material is pervasive throughout the majority of the area, use a chemical herbicide applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. If the site is overgrown with vines and invasive exotics, this material must be removed mechanically or by hand while the plants are dormant, and herbicide applied to the new growth at the beginning of the following growing season. 3. Spot till or add soil amendments to the planting area if necessary. 4. Identify locations of proposed plantings within the delineated area. 5. Install plants chosen from list of recommended species at appropriate spacing. Plugs: 12” to 18” on center Quarts: 18” to 36” on center Shrubs and Trees: Lay out shrubs and trees before planting to be sure views of adjacent homes and properties are obstructed from primary use areas on the Riverbend property.
à
Maintenance: Years 1 & 2 The first two years are the most critical. The level of maintenance required is directly related to the site conditions at the time of the planting. Three elements of maintenance include watering, fertilization, and invasive weed control. Watering may be necessary during the first year, or during periods of drought. Fertilization should be scheduled in the spring and fall of years one and two, and utilize a slow release product. After the two-year establishment period, fertilizing should not be needed. The plant species chosen for the
project should be well adapted to the site conditions and any changes likely to occur in the years after establishment. Invasive weed control is the most important aspect during this period of time. Consistent monthly monitoring and spot removal of invasive plants may be necessary. This can be done by chemical, mechanical, or manual applications. Herbicide applications are an effective method of woodland restoration and long-term management. These applications must be done by a certified pest control professional. Identification and on-site control methods of invasive species should be coordinated and overseen by the Riverbend property manager or environmental consultant / landscape architect specializing in management of native plant communities. Year 3+ After the first two years the plants should be well established. Monitoring for invasive plants can be done annually. Plants that have been lost or damaged can be replaced during the period.
Old Field Succession à Existing Conditions: Shallow soils and steep slopes à Goal: Provide diverse habitat for ground nesting birds and wildlife, screen/divert attention away from utility lines, and reduce maintenance to allow for woody growth by establishing a native warm season grass meadow and seedling trees as an example of old field succession. à Recommended Plant Species Trees and Shrubs Botanical Name Common Name Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis Eastern Redcedar Juniperus virginiana Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera Sassafras Sassafras albidum Grasses – Warm Season Mix Botanical Name Common Name Broom Sedge Andropogon virginicus Virginia Wild Rye Elymus virginicus Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium Purple Top Tridens flavus Application Rate: 15 lbs. per acre Supplier: Ernst Conservation Seed (www.ernstseed.com)
83
à Method (Warm Season Grass Mix): 1. Define the limit of the proposed area to be seeded in the field. Mowing may be necessary either before or after this step depending on the height and density of the existing vegetation. 2. Spray area with Round-up or similar total-kill (Glyphosate) non-selective herbicide in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 3. Repeat step 2 after new growth has sprouted. 4. Seed recommended grass seed mix in accordance with the supplier’s instructions and recommended seeding times. à Method (Perennials, after warm season grasses have been established): 1. Delineate where planting is to occur in defined groupings on the site. This can be done using spray paint or wire flags. 2. Eradicate the existing cover, spot till and/or add soil amendments to the areas to be planted, if necessary. 3. Identify locations of proposed plantings within the delineated area. 4. Install plants chosen from list of recommended species at appropriate spacing. a. Plugs: 12” to 18” on center b. Quarts: 18” to 36” on center c. Shrubs and Trees: Lay out shrubs and trees before planting to create naturalized clusters and to frame views. Provide individual tree protection fences for ease of maintenance. à
Maintenance: Year 1 When vegetation reaches 12” to 18” tall, mow to no less than 6”. The higher mowing is critical to prevent weeds from going to seed and allowing the penetration of sunlight to warm the soil surface and newly emerging sprouts. This high mowing typically occurs three times during the first growing season. Year 2 Mow meadow to 2” or lower in early spring to allow the soil to warm more quickly and the young native plants to emerge. Addition mowing no less than 6” may be necessary to prevent weeds from going to seed in May and June. Year 3+ Mowing may be necessary to control weeds by removing flowers before they go to seed. This may be done with selective mowing and target herbicide applications performed by a certified pesticide applicator. A late fall or early spring mowing to no less than 6” will improve the meadow aesthetics and warm the soil to encourage growth of the warm season grasses.
Sheep Meadow à à à
Existing Conditions: Shallow soils, sloped Goal: Establish a low maintenance, fine fescue grass meadow with native flowering perennials for a high traffic zone. Recommended Plant Species Grasses – No-Mow Area Fine Fescue Grass Mix - Height: 18”-24” Application Rate: 6 lbs. per 1,000 s.f. Recommended Mix: Turf Perfect Dot® Low Maintenance Mix: Low growing and low maintenance
à Method: 1. Define the limit of the proposed area to be seeded in the field. Mowing may be necessary either before or after this step depending on the height and density of the existing vegetation. 2. Spray area with Round-up or similar total-kill (Glyphosate) non-selective herbicide in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 3. Repeat step 2 after new growth has sprouted. 4. Seed recommended grass seed mix in accordance with the supplier’s instructions and recommended seeding times. à
Maintenance: The Sheep Meadow grasses may be mowed periodically to accommodate educational activities and access. The grasses are low growing and will not exceed 12” in height without maintenance or mowing.
Bluebird Meadow à Existing Conditions: Cool season grass no-mow area à Goal: Attract birds and butterflies, and increase aesthetic value by planting a diverse native herbaceous wildflower community. à Recommended Plant Species Perennials Botanical Name Asclepias syriaca Asclepias tuberosa Asclepias verticillata Aster oblongifolius Baptisia alba Baptisia australis Boltonia asteroides Coreopsis rosea
Common Name Common Milkweed Butterfly Weed Horse Tail Milkweed Aromatic Aster White False Indigo False Blue Indigo Thousand-flowered Aster Pink Tickseed
85
Coreopsis verticillata Echinacea purpurea Echinacea p. ‘White Swan’ Eupatorium coelestinum Eupatorium hyssopifolium Liatris spicata Lupinus perennis Phlox paniculata Rudbeckia triloba Rudbeckia fulgida var. fulgida Solidago rigida Vernonia glauca
Thread-leaf Tickseed Purple Coneflower White Coneflower Mistflower Hyssop-leaved Boneset Gayfeather Wild Blue Lupine Garden Phlox Brown-eyed Susan Black-eyed Susan Stiff Goldenrod Upland Ironweed
Grasses – No-Mow Area Tall Fescue Grass Mix - Height: 30”-36” Application Rate: 8 lbs. per 1,000 s.f. Recommended Seed Mixes: Winning Colors Plus: a combination of four tall fescues -DaVinci, Rembrandt, Masterpiece, and Picasso with 10% Champagne Kentucky bluegrass. It has excellent winter color, spring green-up, and traffic tolerance – making it an ideal partner for the tall fescue. à
Method (Tall Fescue Grass Mix): 1. Define the limit of the proposed area to be seeded in the field. Mowing may be necessary either before or after this step depending on the height and density of the existing vegetation. 2. Spray area with Round-up or similar total-kill (Glyphosate) non-selective herbicide in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 3. Repeat step 2 after new growth has sprouted. 4. Seed recommended grass seed mix in accordance with the supplier’s instructions and recommended seeding times.
à
Maintenance:
Year 1 When grasses reach a height of 12” to 18” tall the area may be mowed to no less than 3”. This high mowing typically occurs three times during the first growing season. Year 2 Mow meadow to 3” or lower in early spring to allow the soil to warm more quickly and the young native plants to emerge. Addition mowing may be desired to prevent weeds from going to seed in May and June.
Year 3+ Mowing may be necessary to control weeds by removing flowers before they go to seed. This may be done with selective mowing and target herbicide applications performed by a certified pesticide applicator. A late fall or early spring mowing will improve the meadow aesthetics and warm the soil to encourage growth of the warm season grasses.
Aquatic Pond and Stream System Planting for the proposed pond and drainage “stream” system may include the following: o
Riparian Planting – the riparian planting would include all planting associated with the drainage swale edge and pond edge. These are moist to wet tolerant plants typical of a riparian ecosystem. Trees and Shrubs Botanical Name Common Name Speckled Alder Alnus rugosa Smooth Alder Alnus serrulata Red Chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia Black Chokeberry Aronia melanocarpa River Birch Betula nigra Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum Grey Dogwood Cornus racemosa Red-osier Dogwood Cornus sericea Oakleaf Hydrangea Hydrangea quercifolia Winterberry Ilex verticillata Virginia Sweetspire Itea virginica Spicebush Lindera benzoin Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana Common Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum Cranberry Bush Viburnum trilobum Perennials Botanical Name Asclepias incarnata Aster novae-angliae Aster novi-belgii Boltonia asteroides Caltha palustris Chelone glabra Chelone lyonii Eupatorium dubium Eupatorium perfoliatum
Common Name Swamp Milkweed New England Aster New York Aster Thousand-flowered Aster Marsh Marigold White Turtlehead Pink Turtlehead Three-nerved Joe Pye Boneset
87
Eupatorium purpureum Helenium autumnale Iris versicolor Senecio aureus Solidago graminifolia Zizia aureus
Sweet Joy Pye Weed Common Sneezeweed Blue Flag Golden ragwort Grass-leaved Goldenrod Golden Alexander’s
Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes Botanical Name Common Name Fringed Sedge Carex crinita Lurid Sedge Carex lurida Awl-fruited Sedge Carex stipata Tussock Sedge Carex stricta Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea Northern Seaoates Chasmanthium latifolium Tufted Hairgrass Dechampsia caespitosa Crinkled Hairgrass Deschampsia flexuosa Bottlebrush Grass Elymus hystrix Soft Rush Juncus effusus Path Rush Juncus tenuis Wool Grass Scirpus cyperinus Three-squared Bullrush Scirpus pungens o
Wetland Shelf – a 6” deep wetland “shelf” is proposed in the ponds. This shelf is to be planted with a mix of native aquatic emergent plant species typical of a submerged wetland ecosystem. Perennials Botanical Name Asclepias incarnata Chelone glabra Chelone lyonii Eupatorium dubium Eupatorium perfoliatum Hibiscus coccenium Hibiscus moscheutos Iris versicolor Lobelia cardinalis Lobelia siphilitica Mimulus ringens Peltandra virginica Pentederia cordata Sagitaria latifolia Saururus cernus
Common Name Swamp Milkweed White Turtlehead Pink Turtlehead Three-nerved Joe Pye Boneset Red Hibiscus Swamp Mallow Blue Flat Cardinal Flower Great Blue Lobelia Monkey Flower Arrow Arum Pickerelweed Duck Potato Lizards Tail
Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes Botanical Name Common Name Fringed Sedge Carex crinita Lurid Sedge Carex lurida Awl-fruited Sedge Carex stipata Tussock Sedge Carex stricta Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea Soft Rush Juncus effusus Path Rush Juncus tenuis Switch Grass Panicum virgatum Hard Stem Bullrush Scirpus acutus Green Bullrush Scirpus atrovirens Wool Grass Scirpus cyperinus Three-squared Bullrush Scirpus pungens Soft Stemmed Bullrush Scirpus validus
Stream Access and Stabilization à à à
Existing Conditions: Stable, functioning and accessible stream corridor adjacent to the parking area. Goal: Reduce compaction and improve stream stability using native plantings, and provide educational opportunities by installing habitat structures (cross vanes, etc.) and limited stream access. Recommended Plant Species Trees and Shrubs Botanical Name Common Name Speckled Alder Alnus rugosa Smooth Alder Alnus serrulata Red Chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia Black Chokeberry Aronia melanocarpa Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum Grey Dogwood Cornus racemosa Red-osier Dogwood Cornus sericea Oakleaf Hydrangea Hydrangea quercifolia Winterberry Ilex verticillata Virginia Sweetspire Itea virginica Spicebush Lindera benzoin Sweetbay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana Common Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum Cranberry Bush Viburnum trilobum
89
Perennials Botanical Name Asclepias incarnata Aster novae-angliae Aster novi-belgii Boltonia asteroides Caltha palustris Chelone glabra Chelone lyonii Eupatorium dubium Eupatorium perfoliatum Eupatorium purpureum Helenium autumnale Iris versicolor Senecio aureus Solidago graminifolia Zizia aureus
Common Name Swamp Milkweed New England Aster New York Aster Thousand-flowered Aster Marsh Marigold White Turtlehead Pink Turtlehead Three-nerved Joe Pye Boneset Sweet Joy Pye Weed Common Sneezeweed Blue Flag Golden ragwort Grass-leaved Goldenrod Golden Alexander’s
Grasses, Sedges, and Rushes Botanical Name Common Name Fringed Sedge Carex crinita Lurid Sedge Carex lurida Awl-fruited Sedge Carex stipata Tussock Sedge Carex stricta Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea Northern Seaoates Chasmanthium latifolium Tufted Hairgrass Dechampsia caespitosa Crinkled Hairgrass Deschampsia flexuosa Bottlebrush Grass Elymus hystrix Soft Rush Juncus effusus Path Rush Juncus tenuis Wool Grass Scirpus cyperinus Three-squared Bullrush Scirpus pungens à Method: 1. Delineate where planting with respect to stream access and proposed educational improvements. This can be done using spray paint or wire flags. 2. Eradicate invasive/exotic species from the area before planting. If unwanted plant material is pervasive throughout the majority of the area, use a chemical herbicide applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. If the site is overgrown with vines and invasive exotics, this material must be removed mechanically or by hand while the plants are dormant, and herbicide applied to the new growth at the beginning of the following growing season. The IPM method is a good model for this step. 3. Spot till or add soil amendments to the planting area if necessary to loosen and aerate soil, taking care not to disturb the root system of the riparian trees and the stability of the streambank.
4. Identify locations of proposed plantings within the delineated area. 5. Install plants chosen from list of recommended species at appropriate spacing. a. Plugs: 12” to 18” on center b. Quarts: 18” to 36” on center c. Shrubs and Trees: Lay out shrubs and trees before planting to frame views to the stream and protect important views with respect to the mature size of the plants. Provide individual tree protection fences for ease of maintenance. à
Maintenance: Years 1 & 2 The first two years are the most critical. The level of maintenance required is directly related to the site conditions at the time of the planting. Three elements of maintenance include watering, fertilization, and invasive weed control. Watering may be necessary during the first year, or during periods of drought. Fertilization should be scheduled in the spring and fall of years one and two, and utilize a slow release product. After the two-year establishment period, fertilizing should not be needed. The plant species chosen for the project should be well adapted to the site conditions and any changes likely to occur in the years after establishment. Invasive weed control is the most important aspect during this period of time. Consistent monthly monitoring and spot removal of invasive plants may be necessary. This can be done by chemical, mechanical, or manual applications. Herbicide applications are an effective method of woodland restoration and long-term management. These applications must be done by a certified pest control professional. Identification and on-site control methods of invasive species should be coordinated and overseen by the Riverbend property manager or environmental consultant / landscape architect specializing in management of native plant communities. Year 3+ After the first two years the plants should be well established. Monitoring for invasive plants can be done annually. Plants that have been lost or damaged can be replaced during the period.
91
12. Cost Estimates Cost estimates were developed for projects as described in the master plan. Costs were based on Spring 2010 pricing, and do not include escalation. Costs provide budgeting information for eleven primary project elements identified in the phasing plan. Deer fence Ponds & Tool Storage Valley View Path West Loop Circulation West Loop Projects Pavilion Firepit & Story Circle Stream Access Ports Elevated Bridge & Observation Post Cultivation & Compost Proposed planting improvements not associated with hard construction were assumed to be implementable incrementally, as funding and staffing permit. Unit prices are provided for planting proposed in the five landscape zones established within the master plan. Unit prices are based on a 1000 square foot module, accounting for an area approximately 30’x30’. Zone 1 Managed Woodland Woodland Buffer Old Field Succession Sheep Meadow Bluebird Meadow
93
BECKER & FRONDORF Construction Cost Consulting xProject Management
Project: Number: Client: Date: Phase:
Riverbend Masterplan 10038E1R2 Mara Baird April 28, 2010 Rev. 7 June 10 Masterplan ESTIMATE SUMMARY
CODE
DESCRIPTION
A B C D E
Deer Fence Ponds & Tool Storage Valley View Path North/South Path & Steps West Loop - Grass Swale & Level Spreader West Loop - Specialty Areas Pavilion Firepit & Story Circle Entry - Stream Access Ports Entry - Elevated Bridge Cultivation & Compost
$138,000 $85,000 $38,000 $8,000 $67,000 $69,000
Total
$844,000
F G H I J K
L M N O P
Unit Prices Zone 1 Managed Woodland Woodland Buffer Old Field Succession Sheep Meadow Bluebird Meadow
Notes Costs are current, for Spring 2010; escalation is not included.
COST
$18,000 $255,000 $59,000 $76,000 $31,000
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
SF SF SF SF SF
$5,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,300 $2,300
ESTIMATE
CODE
DESCRIPTION
A
Deer Fence
A1
Fence - Realign Existing Deer Fence
QUANTITY
350
Proj: Date:
Riverbend Masterplan April 28, 2010 Rev. 7 June 10
UNIT
UNIT COST
COST
40.00
14,000
LF
A2 A3 A4 A5
0 0 0 0 Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
B
Ponds & Tool Storage
B1 B2
Site Prep Living Bridge Bridge/4x12 - Plantings/Willows & Training Frame Swales - Assume 2x1 Upper Pool Excavate/5x70x.5+15x4 5x3 - Liner & Base - Edging/Rock - Edging/Misc. Riser Pipe - Pipe/Trench - Connector Middle Pool Excavate/10x30x3 - Liner & Base - Edging/Misc. Rock Fall Lower Pool Excavate/5x90x.5+25x9 5x3 - Liner & Base - Edging/Rock - Edging/Misc. Stream Overflow - Rock & Geotextile/110x3 Level Spreader Excav/Fill/Stone/Pipe/ Inlet/Etc. Circulation Pump/Equipment/
B3 B4 B5
B6 B7 B8 B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15
B16 B17 B18 B19 B20
B21
$14,000 $2,000
15.0% 15.0%
$2,000 $18,000
1 50
LS SF
7,500.00 250.00
7,500 12,500
6
EA
750.00
4,500
400 80
LF CY
9.00 50.00
3,600 4,000
1,000 30 210 45 1 30
SF LF LF LF LS CY
15.00 75.00 25.00 50.00 2,000.00 50.00
15,000 2,250 5,250 2,250 2,000 1,500
300 30 1 270
SF LF LS CY
15.00 25.00 7,500.00 50.00
4,500 750 7,500 13,500
2,800 50 200 330
SF LF LF SF
15.00 75.00 25.00 25.00
42,000 3,750 5,000 8,250
1
EA
8,500.00
8,500
1
LS
15,000.00
15,000
95
B22 B23 B24 B25 B26 B27 B28 B29
Housing/Allowance - Power Connection Bird House Stone Wall - Repair Existing @ Picnic Area Tool Storage - Site Prep - Storage Shed - 10x15 - Signage - Planting - Plumbing & Electrical
1 5 100
LS EA SF
1 150 1 1 1
LS SF LS LS LS
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
C
Valley View Path
C1
Site Prep & Misc. Earthwork Paths - 8' W/Stabilized Earth
C2
2,500.00 100.00 -
By Others 1,250 5,000 2,500 15,000 By Others w/ Unit Prices NIC $192,850 $29,150
15.0%
Proj: Date:
DESCRIPTION
250.00 50.00
15.0%
ESTIMATE
CODE
-
QUANTITY
UNIT
$33,000 $255,000
Riverbend Masterplan April 28, 2010 Rev. 7 June 10
UNIT COST
COST
1
LS
2,500.00
2,500
8,400
SF
5.00
42,000
C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
D
North/South Path & Steps
D1
Site Prep & Misc.
$44,500 $6,500
15.0% 15.0%
1
LS
$8,000 $59,000
2,500.00
2,500
D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 D14 D15 D16 D17
Earthwork Paths - 4' W/Stabilized Earth - Steps/Stone - Railings/per Set
3,300
SF
5.00
16,500
84 170
R LF
250.00 100.00
21,000 17,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
15.0%
ESTIMATE
Proj: Date:
CODE
DESCRIPTION
E
West Loop - Grass Swale & Level Spreader
E1
Site Prep & Misc. Earthwork Swales - Assume 2x1 Level Spreader Excav/Fill/Stone/Pipe/ Inlet/Etc.
E2 E3
$57,000 $9,000
15.0%
QUANTITY
UNIT
$10,000 $76,000
Riverbend Masterplan April 28, 2010 Rev. 7 June 10
UNIT COST
COST
1
LS
2,500.00
2,500
400 2
LF EA
9.00 8,500.00
3,600 17,000
E4 E5
0 0 Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
F
West Loop - Specialty Areas
F1
Site Prep & Misc. Earthwork - Stabilized Areas/8x25
F2
$23,100 $3,900
15.0% 15.0%
$4,000 $31,000
1
LS
5,000.00
5,000
5
EA
1,000.00
5,000
97
F3 F4
F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15
F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23 F24 F25 F26 F27 F28 F29
Burrow - Play Equip/Tunnels/Platforms - Mesh Topiary/4x15x5/Fence/ CL - Mesh Topiary/Vines/3' OC Cocoon - Tunnel/Fabric & Framing/5x5x15 Spiderweb - Safety Surface/8x25 - Spiderweb Climber - Hammock Crow's Nest Lookout Steps/Trex/10' Rise/3' W - Deck/Trex/8x10 - Railing/Thatch & Cable Bird House Lenape Village - Clear Area - Log Structure & Thatch/Long House/8x10 - Wikiup/6' Dia. - Benches/Backless/ Assume 5' L Signage Planting Electrical & Lighting
3
EA
2,500.00
7,500
38
LF
25.00
950
13
EA
50.00
650
400
SF
75.00
30,000
200
SF
7.50
1,500
1 1 20
EA EA R
1,500.00 500.00 500.00
1,500 500 10,000
80 36
SF LF
50.00 200.00
4,000 7,200
5 1
EA LS
250.00 1,500.00
1,250 1,500
80
SF
150.00
12,000
30 20
SF EA
200.00 500.00
6,000 10,000
1 1 1
LS LS LS
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
G
Pavilion
$104,550 $15,650
15.0%
Proj: Date:
DESCRIPTION
By Others w/ Unit Prices NIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15.0%
ESTIMATE
CODE
-
QUANTITY
UNIT
$17,800 $138,000
Riverbend Masterplan April 28, 2010 Rev. 7 June 10
UNIT COST
COST
G1 G2
G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10 G11 G12 G13 G14 G15 G16 G17
Site Prep Pavilion Covered/Open/Wood/ 20x20 Toilets Enclosure/Assume 6x10 - Composting Toilets Well & Appurtenances/ Allowance Camping Area - Site Prep - Relocate Existing Tables Signage Planting Plumbing Electrical & Lighting
1 400
LS SF
2,500.00 75.00
2,500 30,000
60
SF
250.00
15,000
2 1
EA LS
7,500.00 25,000.00
15,000 NIC
1
LS
1,500.00
1,500
5
EA
100.00
500
1 1 1 1
LS LS LS LS
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
H
Firepit & Story Circle
H1 H2
Site Prep Amphitheater Earthwork - Stone Risers Firepit Signage Planting Plumbing Electrical & Lighting
H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
-
By Others w/ Unit Prices NIC NIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 $64,500 $9,500
15.0% 15.0%
$11,000 $85,000
1 1
LS LS
2,500.00 5,000.00
2,500 5,000
120 1 1 1 1 1
LF LS LS LS LS LS
150.00 3,500.00
18,000 3,500 By Others w/ Unit Prices NIC NIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15.0% 15.0%
-
$29,000 $4,000 $5,000 $38,000
.
99
ESTIMATE
Proj: Date:
CODE
DESCRIPTION
I
Entry - Stream Access Ports I1 I2
I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 I10 I11 I12 I13 I14 I15 I16 I17
Site Prep Stream Access Ports/Trex/8x10 Signage Planting Electrical & Lighting
QUANTITY
J
Entry - Elevated Bridge
J1 J2 J3
Site Prep Remove Existing Bridge Observation Post Elevated Bridge/6x30 - Observation Deck/Railing/8x10 Signage Planting Electrical & Lighting
J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 J10 J11 J12 J13 J14 J15 J16 J17
UNIT
1 2
LS EA
1 1 1
LS LS LS
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
Riverbend Masterplan April 28, 2010 Rev. 7 June 10
UNIT COST
COST
500.00 2,800.00
500 5,600
-
By Others w/ Unit Prices NIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $6,100 $900
15.0% 15.0%
$1,000 $8,000
1 1 180
LS LS SF
500.00 1,000.00 250.00
500 1,000 45,000
80
SF
50.00
4,000
1 1 1
LS LS LS
-
By Others w/ Unit Prices NIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
15.0%
ESTIMATE
Proj: Date:
CODE
DESCRIPTION
K
Cultivation & Compost
K1 K2
Site Prep Stormwater Pool Excavate/60x20x3 - Liner & Base - Edging/Misc. Stream Overflow - Rock & Geotextile/200x3 Nursery - Topsoil/8" & Soil Amendments - Fence Compost Plot - Relocate Compost Bins/Allowance - Fence
K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8
K9 K10 K11 K12 K13 K14 K15 K16 K17
$50,500 $7,500
15.0%
QUANTITY
$9,000 $67,000
Riverbend Masterplan April 28, 2010 Rev. 7 June 10
UNIT
UNIT COST
COST
1 130
LS CY
2,500.00 50.00
2,500 6,500
1,200 160 600
SF LF SF
15.00 25.00 25.00
18,000 4,000 15,000
120
CY
50.00
6,000
300 1
LF LS
500.00
NIC 500
250
LF
-
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
NIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $52,500 $7,500
15.0% 15.0%
$9,000 $69,000
L
Zone 1 Managed Woodland
1,000
SF
L1 L2
Clear Vines/Etc. Trees/Deciduous/ 2" Cal/50' OC Trees/Ornamental/ 10' H/20' OC Shrubs/2' H/10' OC Native Perennials/1 Plug/36" OC
1,000 0.40
SF EA
0.50 450.00
500 180
2.50
EA
150.00
380
10 110
EA EA
75.00 12.50
750 1,380
L3 L4 L5 L6
0
101
L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 L15 L16 L17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
15.0%
ESTIMATE
Proj: Date:
CODE
DESCRIPTION
M
Woodland Buffer
1,000
SF
M1 M2
Clear Vines/Etc. Trees/Deciduous/ 2" Cal/30' OC Trees/Ornamental/ 10' H/20' OC Trees/Evergreen/ 3 Gal/40' OC Shrubs/2' H/10' OC
1,000 1.11
M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17
QUANTITY
Old Field Succession
UNIT
$1,000 $5,000
Riverbend Masterplan April 28, 2010 Rev. 7 June 10
UNIT COST
COST
SF EA
0.50 450.00
500 500
2.50
EA
150.00
380
0.60
EA
250.00
150
10
EA
75.00
750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
N
$3,190 $810
15.0%
15.0% 15.0%
1,000
SF
$2,280 $720 $500 $3,500
N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15 N16 N17
Clear Trees/Etc. Trees/Pines/8' H/50' OC Native Grasses/Seeding
1,000 0.40 1,000
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
SF EA SF
1,000 300 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $2,300 $300
15.0% 15.0%
ESTIMATE
Proj: Date:
CODE
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
O
Sheep Meadow
1,000
SF
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9 O10 O11 O12 O13 O14 O15 O16 O17
Clear Ground Cover/Etc. Grass/Seeding
1,000 1,000
SF SF
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
1.00 750.00 1.00
UNIT
15.0% 15.0%
$400 $3,000
Riverbend Masterplan April 28, 2010 Rev. 7 June 10
UNIT COST
COST
1.00 0.75
1,000 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,750 $250 $300 $2,300
103
P
Bluebird Meadow
1,000
SF
P1 P2
Clear Ground Cover/Etc. Native Perennials/1 Plug/36" OC
1,000 110
SF EA
P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17
0.50 12.50
500 1,380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond Contingency Total
15.0% 15.0%
$1,880 $120 $300 $2,300
Adjustments and additions to the prepared cost estimate include reconsideration of the cost of deciduous trees. Adjustments to landscape zone unit prices: à 2” Cal Deciduous Tree @ $450 (reduced from $1500) à 7 Gal Understory Ornamental Tree @ $150 (reduced from $750) Zone 1 Managed Woodland 1000 square foot adjustment à $5000 (reduced from $7000) Woodland Buffer 1000 square foot adjustment à $3500 (reduced from $6900) Preliminary consideration was given to how unit prices for landscape zone improvements might be applied across the site. It must be noted that this exercise produces only general budget figures, as Riverbend does not have a professional topographic survey which details the extent of existing vegetation. Zone 1 Managed Woodland @ $5000 à Parking Lot @ 7425 square feet ($37,125) à Valley View 10’ Perimeter @ 6500 square feet ($32,500) Woodland Buffer @ $3500) à 125,675 square feet ($439,863) Old Field Succession @ $3000 à 25,800 square feet ($77,400) Sheep Meadow @ $2300 à Below Stone Wall 16,200 square feet @ $2300 ($37,260) à Camping & Pavilion 28,600 square feet ($65,780) Bluebird Meadow @ $2300 à 30,525 square feet ($70,208)
13. Meeting Notes MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Attendees DATE: 9-16-09 RE: Notes of Interview I: 9/15/09 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Attending: Laurie Bachman, Executive Director Stacy Carr-Poole, Director of Education Chris Wales, Habitat Manager
Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO Kelly Gutshall, LandStudies
1. The scope of services and project schedule outlined in the project proposal was reviewed. a. Interview II will be conducted with the Property Committee on 9/17 @ 6pm b. Interview III will be conducted with members of the Board of Directors on 10/6 @ 5:15pm c. A list of contacts for the remaining 4 interviews will be provided to ML Baird, for independent coordination. d. Phase II, Study Committee Meeting I was scheduled for 10/15 @ 4:30pm e. Phase II, Public Meeting I was scheduled for 10/27 @ 7pm f. All meetings will be held at Riverbend, with the potential exception of those noted in ‘c’. g. Subsequent meetings for Phase III, Preliminary Master Plan Concept, will be scheduled at the conclusion of meetings noted above. 2. Site and program documentation was reviewed and distributed as available. Other documents were identified for independent transmittal (see attached list). a. Verbal description was provided for utilities known to be present on site: i. Septic system ii. Well iii. Storage tank for fire service iv. Electric easement v. Phone/cable b. Property lines indicated on existing Master Site Development Plan are not accurate. Documentation will be provided in order that a base plan for the updated Site Development Plan can reflect actual property lines and at minimum, the approximate location of deer fence surrounding the 10 acre project area. c. Riverbend has a legal agreement accommodating existing siting of deer fence and usage of area falling outside of property lines. 3. Existing Master Site Development Plan was reviewed. a. Parking Area improvements have been completed.
105
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
i. No conservation/access easements to adjacent Spring Mill Road property have been acquired. ii. Existing lot (35 spaces + up to 15 along road) is inadequate for institutional needs, limits program size, particularly in light of parking needs for staff, volunteers and vendors. iii. Remote parking & shuttle service from adjacent institutions have been arranged for large attendance programs. iv. Area residents have expressed concerns about increased activity levels at Riverbend, but have never complained about actual parking/traffic issues in recent years. v. Yellow Poplar Trail adjacent to the site is not entirely paved and suffered extreme damage in the August 2, 2009 storm. vi. Yellow Poplar Trail provides important service access. Trucks have managed access along much of the trail, though it is difficult in wet conditions and no turnaround is available. vii. Conversations are being conducted with the Township about the damaged condition of the road, particularly at the site entry. viii. The footbridge from the parking lot to the entry was constructed by the Township in response to the frequency and severity of flooding at the site entry. ix. The stream bank adjacent to the road is highly eroded. Entry Pavilion has not been constructed. i. Visitors typically arrive in groups of a size not accommodated by the proposed pavilion. ii. A welcome sign exists. Additional orientation/interpretation beneath a roofed structure would be a positive addition at the entry. Upper Level Barn Entrance Addition i. Barn does not have efficient space use. Programmatic offerings are pursued as a vehicle to raising funds for physical improvements to this facility. New Gathering Spaces i. These have not been implemented. The vehicular turnaround was not deemed feasible. ii. There is support for concept of a nature playscape across from the Barn/near the restrooms in an underutilized area of the site. Important planning considerations would include ease of maintenance. Lenape Exhibits i. Exhibits not well located, particularly relative to traffic noise (a problem from low to mid elevations on site). ii. Lenape Exhibits should be so located so that groups can gather there at the same time that environmental programs are being conducted elsewhere on site. iii. The Lenape program is particularly popular in the fall. Berry Patch i. Pick your own berries has not been implemented and is not seen as a revenue producer.
ii. The solar demonstration house is located in prime open space, it is small and does not offer a lot to hold children’s’ attention. In that respect it is in conflict with Riverbend’s vision to be the best at what they do. g. Destination Area i. No overlook tower has been constructed, but it is considered an attractive idea. ii. Camping programs currently exist and would benefit from a composting toilet located nearby. iii. Removal of both ponds on site in favor of a single large pond with sustainable access for teaching purposes (group of 20) is a significant institutional goal. Few level areas exist for natural siting of a pond, but water figures importantly within educational programs. iv. The existing upper pond is not located within legal property limits. h. Lower Stone Bridge i. A Trail Feasibility Study is being undertaken by Upper & Lower Merion, and Conshohocken. There are pockets of opposition to development of a western branch of the Schuylkill trail. ii. No safe access to the River currently exists. iii. A Maintenance Shed has not been constructed as indicated on the plan. This area is seen as remote and inconvenient for service activities. A maintenance shed is located below the barn. i. River’s Edge i. No construction has been initiated in this area as it is not on Riverbend property. j. Native Woodland Restoration Area i. This area is quite steep and falls outside the area of site considered most important to educational programs. It is, therefore, not considered a high priority and falls outside the scope of the current planning effort. 4. PEOPLE a. What is the general size of class groups? Busses deposit 60-100-120 children at any one time. Groups are divided into smaller units of 15-20. 6 such groups can rotate simultaneously around stations throughout the site. b. What are target age groups? Children….preK through upper elementary. c. How long is the average visit? Programs last 1-2 hours. Groups often stay for lunch. d. How much is the site used? i. Riverbend’s core mission is to educate children. School programs operate M-F from 10-1. Programs are popular but not entirely at capacity. ii. Site use is heaviest April-Nov (with the exception of September) iii. More offsite programs are conducted in the winter. Independent visitors come to walk/walk dogs, but not in great numbers.
107
iv.
Visibility of Riverbend within the community is considered less than desired. v. The facilities are used for rentals and occasional large events. Groups of 75-100 are the largest that can be accommodated in the barn. e. Is there repeat visitation? Some local visitors come every weekend. Some children return with parents following school and camp programs. 5. ON_SITE PROGRAMS a. What is the focus of existing programs on site (animals, vegetation, water, soil/geology….) i. There is currently not much interest in sustainability programs, presumably because schools are pursuing them independently. ii. Outdoor and/or travelling exhibits would be welcome. iii. Adventure trails are viewed as too advanced for the target audience and a liability issue. b. What features would enhance educational programs? i. Existing trails are not constructed to be accessible and many are in poor condition (steep, eroded, etc.) ii. Existing trails have not been located specifically with respect to appropriate access for educational programs. iii. Rainy days are difficult, without sufficient covered areas provided. iv. Additional interpretation for independent visitors is viewed as appropriate. v. Standardized design for signage and site furnishings. 6. SITE a. What are primary maintenance issues? i. Most time and resources are spent on controlling invasives – clearing areas, cutting vines and planting canopy trees. Invasives include: mile a minute vine, five leaf akebia, porcelain berry, Japanese barberry, ailanthus, paulownia, amur cork tree, Norway maple. ii. Riverbend has one Habitat Manager and occasional volunteers who hand pull invasives and plant trees. A core group of permanent volunteers would be helpful, as they could be trained to perform additional tasks. iii. Riverbend has a donated lawnmower that needs repair. Currently, someone is comes in to cut grass. No other turf management is used. iv. An IPM approach is being taken to habitat management. v. No water and electricity is available at the top of the site and would be helpful to maintenance and programmatic needs. b. What are the most positive features of the site? i. Stream ii. Sassafras iii. Large oaks on hill iv. Jack in the Pulpit
v. Stone Walls vi. Available views 7. AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS a. Master Site Development Plan b. Lower Merion Township Topographic Maps (E,F,G13) c. Base Plan (drawn from records &aerial/Rolph Sauer/2003) d. Base Plan (drawn from records/Yerkes/2002) e. Features Location Plan (no source/date) f. Trails Plan (no source/print made 92) g. PA Forest Stewardship Plan (Natural Lands Trust/92) h. On-Lot Sewage Disposal System Application (1956) i. AWBOA Planting List j. 2008 Plant Inventory k. 2008-2011 Strategic Plan l. 2008 Annual Report m. Spring 2008 Sustainability Report n. Around the ‘Bend – Winter 2007 Issue o. Brochures i. Riverbend ii. Trail Guide iii. Education Programs iv. Year-Round Camp v. Exploration Camp vi. Nature Clubs vii. Birthday Parties viii. Membership p. 2009-2010 Family Program Calendar 8. FORTHCOMING DOCUMENTS a. Property Survey/plan of deer fence b. Bird Observation Area Documents (survey & hardscape as built emailed 9/16) c. Proposed Bird Observation Deck (plan & rendering emailed 9/16) d. Geology Report Referenced in Existing Master Site Development Plan e. List of Facilities Tasks
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Attendees DATE: 9-18-09 RE: Notes of Interview II: 9/17/09 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Attending: Laurie Bachman, Executive Director Chris Wales, Habitat Manager Emily Crane
Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO
109
Wick Littleton Steve Shreiner Lisa Thomas, Property Committee Chair Cindy Shaw
1. The project & project team were introduced, and scope of services and project schedule reviewed. 2. The mission and strategic plan determined that the target audience for Riverbend is children. Individuals and members of the community will continue to be welcome, but the master plan development should be targeted specifically toward furthering Riverbend’s educational programs for children. 3. Riverbend is not as widely known within the community as it could/should be. The ‘Mom network’ operates as a significant marketing tool for Riverbend’s programs. Other marketing tools could/should be explored. 4. Special aspects of Riverbend’s programs include the ‘immersion’ of children in nature (wet, muddy, hands on), and the fact that there is a long season of programs. (This goes importantly toward the master plan goal of increasing interest/usability of the site within seasons it is not now heavily used). 5. The installation of deer fence is widely seen as critical to the physical development of the site, as it allowed a higher commitment to the land/landscape. There is strong interest in enhancing the natural aspects of the site to strengthen its environmental education potential. 6. Favorite aspects of the site include the steep topography, the diversity of the landscapes, and the presence of water. The presence of water at the entry to the site is a particular asset. 7. The entry along Spring Mill Road, particularly with respect to the overgrowth of invasives is viewed as a detractor. 8. The solar hut is not considered to contribute positively to the site or the educational program. 9. The Lenape Village should be reconsidered/rebuilt to achieve a higher quality/standard. a. This is both an important educational and historic feature of the site. 10. Restroom facilities should be added at the top of the hill. 11. A pavilion should be added at the top of the hill. 12. More play could be incorporated in interpretation/development of the site. a. The group expressed interest in learning more about nature playscapes. b. A ‘really great playground’ is a draw for families.
13. Environmental art could be incorporated both as a new feature and a new interpretive tool. a. Art could take the form of temporary installations and/or children’s work. 14. Additional documents distributed to ML BAIRD a. Geophysical Survey (Enviroscan /2003) b. Soils/Wetland Map (no source/date) c. Exhibit A – approximate fence location
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Susan Newitt, Laurie Bachman, Kelly Gutshall DATE: 9-28-09 RE: Notes of Interview III: 9/28/09 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Phone Conference: Susan Newitt, Teacher/Lower Merion School
Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO
1. Susan has a long involvement with Riverbend, beginning when her own children, now grown, were young. 2. Susan teaches 3rd grade in Lower Merion. Her students currently participate mostly in the spring programs (composting/earthworms and soil/rocks/geology). Participating teachers generally are pleased with the programs. 3. Programs have changed in the past couple of years, and have improved in content and depth. Success of programs currently is strongly linked with the interpretation of a particular teacher. Facilities improvements should support expansion of an in-depth hands on curriculum that makes the most of the three allotted segments of a 90 minute visit; e.g.: a. Have an site area where soil augers can be successfully used by children (re: soil texture/plant growth) b. Have a site area where a link can be demonstrated between plant life/communities and soil composition. c. Develop a hands on teaching/demonstration about plants. d. Improve teaching/demonstration areas to include storage facilities for supplies. 4. Participation in Riverbend programs assumes that children will be out of doors and will be dressed accordingly. Rainy weather presents difficulties with respect to limitations in available covered space for teaching (Barn, Outdoor Theater). a. An additional covered teaching area at the top of the slope would be an asset. 5. Centralized location of restroom facilities can interfere with program schedule and staffing, if a teacher must accompany a child to the Barn from more distant site locations. A restroom facility on the upper slope would be an asset.
111
6. Improvements to and expansion of the existing pathway system would be helpful. The existing central pathway is sometimes difficult to negotiate. 7. The stream is a wonderful resource, though its use is somewhat limited for public school students regarding perceived liabilities.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Andrea Bretting, Laurie Bachman, Kelly Gutshall DATE: 9-29-09 RE: Notes of Interview IV: 9/29/09 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Phone Conference: Andrea Bretting, Program ManagerClaneil Foundation
Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO
1. Riverbend received a grant from the Claneil Foundation in November ’07. Andrea was not with the Foundation at that time, but reviewed documents in the file. She has visited Riverbend, but has not observed educational programs in progress. At the time of her visit, she was impressed that the institution has engaged the interest and commitment of individuals representing a diversity of backgrounds. 2. Riverbend’s grant was one of the Foundation’s small grants, intended to offer general operating support in amounts up to $15,000. The majority of small grant recipients are located within the metropolitan area, with missions appropriate to the strategy of human services central to the Claneil Foundation. Small grants can be awarded on an ongoing basis. Large grants, in amounts up to $50,000 offer one time support over a twelve month term. Large grants recognize innovative strategies or cutting edge organizations that generally are intended to educate within, or broaden the range of a particular field of expertise. 3. Riverbend’s application was persuasive to the Foundation in addressing environmental education for children, particularly within underserved communities. The construction project included within the grant request was viewed as an attractive facility appropriate to those educational goals. 4. Riverbend’s focus on the integration of environment, education, and children – particularly those in underserved communities – would be persuasive within any future grant applications, as opposed to an application solely for environmental restoration. 5. The Claneil Foundation is a small family foundation, interested in broad issues. The foundation is willing to take risks, as they are supported by individual grant applications. The Foundation is persuaded by the substance of the applications, rather than a need for self-promotion.
6. Applications which speak comprehensively to the environment (water/land) and education of children are viewed favorably, as would be those suggesting collaborations among organizations which would provide for broader, more multidimensional programs.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Chris Leswing, Laurie Bachman, Kelly Gutshall DATE: 9-30-09 RE: Notes of Interview V: 9/29/09 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Attending: Chris Leswing, Asst. Director, Building & Planning Township of Lower Merion
Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO
1. Chris Leswing authored the Township Open Space Plan. A goal of that plan is to link greenways along the Schuylkill River. Incrementally, it is being achieved, though it is not universally supported, particularly where it would require easements through residential areas. a. Within that plan, Riverbend could provide a vital educational component. Riverbend has access to the river through an existing culvert. It also has an easement with the railroad, accommodating a connection across the tracks. b. Bridlewild Trails Association, a private association, has a long established linkage through institutional, public, and limited private lands. It has a connection to Riverbend and has trails on Riverbend’s campus. 2. There are a significant number of public parks and private institutional open spaces throughout the Township. Several are close to Riverbend, and there is some competition for funding from other open space/educational organizations. There is also opportunity for cooperation and partnership. 3. Riverbend’s connection to underserved children in Norristown and Philadelphia is strong. Visibility within the community could be increased by direct outreach to similarly underserved communities in Ardmore. 4. Riverbend might also increase its local visibility by strengthening its perception as a Township resource for Township residents and as a Gladwyne destination for Gladwyne residents. 5. Riverbend’s physical site merits development/improvements strengthening its perception as a first class facility.
toward
113
6. The extent of invasive plants currently at Riverbend could be used, at least in the short term, as an educational opportunity, for internal programs, or communitywide public service announcements. 7. Riverbend volunteer activities are perceived as positive and popular. The Township also hosts volunteer events (trail building, etc.). The Township has developed a ‘Mobile Tool Shed’ for such events and is cultivating relationships with organizations/groups which might provide core leadership for such improvement activities. Plant focused organizations, scout groups, and the wide range of public and private schools – many with public service requirements - are potential partners. A similar approach to partnerships and sponsorships might be advantageous to Riverbend. 8. Land development at Riverbend must adhere to Township code. Within the code, institutions expand by special exception. Trail development in general would not be problematic. Removing trees or increasing impervious surface as part of land development are limited by code. Preservation of natural resources, stormwater and erosion control are important Township goals. Relative to historic resources, only structures are regulated by the code.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Attendees DATE: 10-06-09 RE: Notes of Interview VI: 10-06-09 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Attending: Laurie Bachman, Executive Director Beverly Galloway, Chair Michael Haines, Vice-Chair Gwen Bianchi William Curran Eric Milby Steve Shreiner Lisa Thomas
Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO
1. The project & project team were introduced, and scope of services and project schedule reviewed. 2. Important site features include: a. b. c. d. e.
Meadow…..kids need the opportunity to run Ponds and presence/sound of water Proximity….surprise gem in Gladwyne Sense of mystery…..encourages exploration Authenticity…..natural, comfortable, welcoming character of site. ‘You don’t have to dress up to come visit’….Don’t want to be slick/Disney.
3. An additional covered teaching space would be a positive facilities improvement. 4. Access up and down step site slopes is challenging and could be improved. 5. Access to the River would provide extraordinary program opportunities. 6. Lenape Village is important to the program and should be relocated uphill where acoustics are more favorable for teaching. 7. A natural playscape on the slope across from the Barn would be a positive facilities improvement. 8. A greater variety of attractions/destinations should be provided to extend appeal to a larger audience: a. b. c. d.
Birds Water features Hiking Organic garden
9. The site has more capacity for program and visitors than is currently realized. The Master Plan should suggest a balance between preserving natural site features and accommodating children’s groups.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Karen Aydt, Laurie Bachman, Kelly Gutshall DATE: 10-7-09 RE: Notes of Interview VII: 10/07/09 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Attending: Karen Aydt, President, Gladwyne Civic Assoc.
Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO
1. The distinguishing feature of Riverbend is the directed focus on outdoor experience. As opposed to other programs (school, etc.) promoting recycling, energy conservation, etc., Riverbend completes the message by helping children understand their place as part of the natural environment. This ‘puts a face’ on the message of sustainability…..in frogs and trees and clean water. Riverbend expands children’s boundaries, in many cases challenging them to learn by taking them out of their own familiar environment. a. Even special events such as Shiverfest, relate holidays to what is happening in the natural world. 2. The deer fence has created a special environment for growing plants that can not be maintained in other local parks and open spaces.
115
3. The addition of a tower or elevated walkway would be a positive addition to the facilities, allowing children to view nature up close at the unusual perspective of height. 4. Riverbend does not have as much local presence as it might, though this has improved within recent years, and especially under Laurie Bachman’s directorship. It is a unique asset, as few institutions focus so exclusively on children. 5. The incorporation of natural art could be a positive addition and expand Riverbend’s audience. It might also provide a means by which to ‘make nature fantastical/magical’ to children. 6. The Civic Association is aware of the gap between local open space and Township capabilities to maintain it, particularly with respect to invasive species. The Civic Association is organizing clean up days, and is planning a native plant planting event on public & private spaces in Gladwyne in association with residents. Welsh Valley School already has a similar program, and accepts donated native plants from residents to grow on. a. It is likely there would be local interest in serving on a volunteer corps to help maintain Riverbend plantings. b. The Township’s Mobile Tool Shed has good local visibility and might be a positive model for Riverbend.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Laurie Bachman, Kelly Gutshall DATE: 11-03-09 RE: Notes of Study Committee Meeting 10-15-09 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Attending: Laurie Bachman, Executive Director Stacy Carr-Poole, Director of Education Chris Wales, Habitat Manager Rick Gallagher Rob Lambert Bill Read Lindsay Taylor, Director of Parks & Recreation, Township of Lower Merion Lisa Thomas, Property Committee Chair Harriet Wentz Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO Kelly Gutshall, LandStudies
The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the project and process to the Study Committee. The project team reviewed the project schedule and the interview process. Substantive observations from the key interviews were discussed. The project team presented site assessment diagrams, which included both natural features and institutional facilities and program features. Following are comments and observations offered by the Study Committee. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Historically, there was a rail station at the end of Spring Mill road. Historically, stone walls provided sheep enclosure on the property. At one time, the spring house belonged to Riverbend. The Solar Hut occupies space within a prime viewing area on site. Site opportunities (such as existing bedrock) might be used to make geology lessons more interesting. 6. Site trails should be ecologically and technically designed to last over time. 7. Site surface stormwater might be channeled to create a more natural pond. 8. Relocation of facilities/maintenance operations would be ease process of site maintenance. 9. Improved access to the stream, as well as improvements at the entry triangle would be positive additions. Grants are available for stream bank restoration. The entry triangle is not Riverbend property, but might be available at some future point. 10. Riverbend has a right of way to cross the rail lines, but at the moment, direct connection to the river seems a long range goal. Laurie has copies of Township greenway plans (Campbell Thomas) which should be reviewed for possible inclusion within the master plan study. 11. Could existing utility lines be buried?
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Laurie Bachman, Kelly Gutshall DATE: 11-03-09 RE: Notes of Public Meeting 10-29-09 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Attending: Laurie Bachman, Executive Director Chris Wales, Habitat Manager Beverly Galloway, Chair Lisa Thomas, Property Committee Chair Harriet Wentz Peter Grove Lois and Jerry Renthal Greg Weinstein Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO Kelly Gutshall, LandStudies
117
The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the project and process to neighbors and interested members of the community. The project team reviewed the project schedule and the interview process. Substantive observations from the key interviews were discussed. The project team presented site assessment diagrams, which included both natural features and institutional facilities and program features. Following are comments and observations offered by neighbors and community members. 1. Improvement of bee and butterfly areas would be an attraction for an expanded audience at Riverbend. 2. Could an outside firm be hired to remove all invasives? Riverbend does not have funds for this, nor staffing to manage the full property at the same stage of restoration. Restoration in these circumstances (funding/staffing) should be phased. 3. Removal of invasives along Spring Mill would be positive for the neighborhood. Volunteer efforts might be coordinated with the Township. 4. ‘Swiss Family Robinson House’ might be an exciting approach for combining instruction with imagination and viewing opportunities. 5. An improved firepit (Bedford Springs Resort) would be a positive addition.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Laurie Bachman, Kelly Gutshall DATE: 1-4-10 RE: Notes of Study Committee Meeting 12-10-09 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Attending: Laurie Bachman, Executive Director Stacy Carr-Poole, Director of Education Chris Wales, Habitat Manager Rick Gallagher Rob Lambert Bill Read Lindsay Taylor, Director of Parks & Recreation, Township of Lower Merion Lisa Thomas, Property Committee Chair Harriet Wentz Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO Kelly Gutshall, LandStudies
The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the preliminary master site concept. The project team reviewed aspects of entry/identity; accessibility; circulation; site features; landscape features & edge conditions; and service. The presentation offered preliminary images to suggest recommended site character. Following are comments and observations offered by the Study Committee.
1. Recommended change at entry is positive, but a platform should be provided for regular access to the stream. Two points of access to the parking lot stream are required, with 15-20 children in each section. Two groups also will need to be accommodated at the pond. 2. Circulation recommendations are positive, with strong destinations. Switchback with stopping points provides interesting routes, and accommodates ‘rooms’ for teaching. 3. How will water be provided to the pond? Recommended site may be too steep. It is likely that the pond will be a priority project. 4. Kinetic garden could be positive draw. A retired engineer in Narberth has provided an analogous attraction. 5. Kinetic garden does not support current school curriculum, but could be an independent attraction. 6. New trail through reclamation area is positive. 7. New Lenape location would need to be screened from adjacent neighbors. 8. A turf area for active play is needed. 9. Use of sheep meadow is questioned. Amphitheater seating is provided elsewhere on site. 10. Centralized service is preferred, located in center of site. 11. Cultivation area is positive. Volunteers could assist in this area. 12. Water supply at Swiss Family Robinson House would support both programs and site maintenance. 13. Reducing steep grades at the entry to the Barn is positive. 14. Development of the interior of the site, quiet and accessible to the Barn is positive. 15. Disturbance areas should be evaluated re: Township steep slope code requirements.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Laurie Bachman, Kelly Gutshall DATE: 1-04-10 RE: Notes of Public Meeting 12-17-09 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Attending: Laurie Bachman, Executive Director Gwen Bianchi Michael Haines Chris Leswing, Assistant Director, Building & Planning, Township of Lower Merion Rob Lambert Bill Read Lisa Thomas, Property Committee Chair Lisa Williamson Alison & Chad Graham Joe Rogers Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO Kelly Gutshall, LandStudies
119
The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the preliminary master site concept. The project team reviewed aspects of entry/identity; accessibility; circulation; site features; landscape features & edge conditions; and service. The presentation offered preliminary images to suggest recommended site character. Following are comments and observations offered by neighbors and community members. 1. The existing bench by the pond is to be re-sited in the new plan. 2. Children may take shortcuts up and down slopes rather than follow paths alignments. 3. Branding of activity areas is a positive marketing approach. 4. Definition of edges as buffer with concentrated central activities is a positive approach to accommodating this institution within a residential context. 5. Multiple attractions and ‘rooms’ for teaching are viewed as positive aspects of the plan. 6. The plan offers possibilities for development partnerships. 7. The plan offers possibilities for development of a winter landscape, and attraction of diverse wildlife. 8. More water resources should be provided for attracting wildlife. 9. The plan should emphasize Riverbend’s place within/significance to the watershed.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Laurie Bachman, Kelly Gutshall DATE: 1-25-10 RE: Notes of Site Walk 1-21-10 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Attending: Laurie Bachman, Executive Director Stacy Carr-Poole, Director of Education Chris Wales, Habitat Manager Rob Lambert Bill Read Lisa Thomas, Property Committee Chair Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO Kelly Gutshall, LandStudies
The purpose of the meeting was to review on site recommendations of the preliminary master plan concept, in advance of next phase revisions and refinements. Following are comments and observations offered.
1. There should be two points of contact to the stream at the parking lot. A connecting path parallel to the stream is not necessarily required. A boardwalk (non slip) surface to access the stream is desirable. 2. Recommendations for planting at the entry should consider the deer population in this area. 3. Raising the pedestrian bridge between the parking lot and the barn is desirable. Improvements to the bridge size and alignment could be considered. 4. Recommendations of a bridge between the barn and upper landscape levels are questionable with respect to clearance requirements on the primary path. 5. Relocation of a picnic area is not preferred at the barn entry. A site somewhat removed is preferred due to the existing location of the reservoir for the fire pumps and in the interest of providing a quieter atmosphere when classes are conducted at the picnic area. 6. The refined plan will consider general sizes of spaces that can be accommodated within the plan, particularly relative to minimizing earth disturbance. It was observed that not all spaces will need to be level to be programmatically useful. 7. The Lenape Village site will require a second and more direct means of access. 8. The plan should consider merits of relocating deer fence where it does not coincide with existing property lines. 9. A new recommendation is to be made where an amphitheater was indicated below the existing stone walls. 10. Plan revisions should consider extending the planting recommended beneath the existing utility lines, as well as the possibility of creating an east/west path connection through it. 11. The plan should consider a potential development of the hollow within the slope north of the primary path/west of the stone walls. Children currently use the space to gather twigs, etc. 12. Chris will inventory tools which might be stored in a central location adjacent to the existing amphitheater, in order that the required size of that facility can be determined, and its location tested. 13. Design ideas for the ‘Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse’ may be solicited through an architectural design studio or a competition. 14. The kinetic garden is not to be included in the final plan, but the idea will be recorded in documentation of the project planning process. 15. Camping is to be maintained where it is currently.
MSP Concept Plan Feedback from Staff Big picture thoughts – our goals are to create a plan that will help us to achieve our vision and support our mission. One way to think about this is to look at our little island of land and if we become a patchwork of healthy Pa. habitat we will be very valuable as an educational institution – sort of a microcosm of what the bigger picture should look like. To take the idea of representing succession on a smaller scale provides lasting value. So, from the larger view there may not be that singular idea(s) that provide a wow, out of the box thinking, project – rather it will be in the details that will make people return to
121
Riverbend (aka Chanticleer). For example, we have ponds and they are fine – but a really cool, well-designed pond could be that delightful/enchanted factor. Picnic Tables – would not mind moving them if a more appropriate spot works but this isn’t a high priority issue for us. Sassafras Trail Area: x Really like lengthening the trail with switchbacks with opportunities of interest in the nodes along the way. x Nodes: o Would like more detail on any recommended nodes. o An idea – to build a small cave-like structure into the hillside that could be like a hobbit house x Habitat – perhaps include an evergreen forest patch between existing hardwood forest area and the meadow it would go into. We were picturing this at the lower, right portion of the trail. x View at top of trail – as you have pointed out this is a great view and perhaps a lookout structure here would work well. It would not interfere with the neighbors’ view either. Lenape Village – like the recommended area but would also suggest looking at moving it even further toward the river where there is some additional flat land Bluebird Meadow: x Really like the trails and organic shape. x Suggestion – enlarge the area and put the pond in the middle of it. x Pond – really needs to a very special attraction. Size – about ½ acre to accommodate at minimum 25 around the perimeter – and understand that not areas of the perimeter will allow accessibility to the pond. Include a wet lands area. Would like it deep enough in some place to not freeze to allow for fish. A deep area would need to be protected from a child’s access (through planting). Earth Wind and Fire Space: x Probably would like to use this as the flat play area. I think we already said that, though Swiss Family Robinson Space: x Somewhere we need the composting toilets x What about making a cool firepit area with seating built into the hill similar to the Sheep’s Meadow idea – albeit on a much smaller scale. x Think the concept of a huge structure here is not going to be feasible – also, we don’t need to get all things (compost toilets, lookout and cool destination) all into one structure – hence the idea of moving the lookout to a different location on the site. Sheep’s Meadow Space: x Would like to consider a nature playscape here
Feedback from other committee members x
The only issue that is not addressed and continues to be a challenge is that of how to get water up to the hill in order to fill the pond(s). And it seems to me that must be addressed and put into the plan. It can be a fairly simple installation with an electric pump, drawing water out of the stream and taking it up the hill to a tank or collecting device. The pump and hoses would be usable during most of the year and would have to be winterized during the freezing months. x I think the pond location above the wall is a good idea. x I think the nursery thing is unlikely but don't know what else could go in that location. Not sure about the likelihood of actually doing the water collection for the nursery. x Not sure about the trail going through the restoration area - the connection to the amphitheater area could be a bit rough but I am getting ahead into the design phase. x I think that we could do the minor flattening for the nodes as part of trail construction and the township would probably be ok with it.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Laurie Bachman, Kelly Gutshall DATE: 2-17-10 RE: Notes of Study Committee Meeting 2-16-10 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan Attending: Laurie Bachman, Executive Director Stacy Carr-Poole, Director of Education Chris Wales, Habitat Manager Lisa Thomas, Property Committee Chair Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO
The purpose of the meeting was to review revisions to the master plan concept, and to select 2 projects to advance to schematic design. Following are comments and observations offered. 1. Refinements to the plan features, stormwater management concept and landscape areas were well received. 2. The existing pond has a liner. There was considerable discussion about how to insure that new ponds are available for programs by retaining water. Site preparation alternatives might include a concrete base. This was offered additionally in light of the existing deterioration of the dry laid stone walls just below the proposed pond site. 3. An alternative pond siting further into Bluebird Meadow might be considered, should further study suggest that the proposed site can not be successfully engineered.
123
4. The pond project would include both stabilization of the stone walls and relocation of the deer fence to the actual property corner. The abutting residential property is going on the market. 5. Planting for the pond should include trees for shading. 6. The recommended location for tool storage adjacent to the existing amphitheater is to be shifted across the path. A ‘feature’ structure is proposed, built into the existing bank/hollow within the slope north of the primary path/west of the stone walls. 7. The cultivation/compost area is not a high priority, but could be utilized for stockpiling limbs and vegetation cleared from site. The site is not programmatically useful due to noise considerations. MLB recommended holding the space for future development of a nursery and compost area as Riverbend continues to grow and expand partnering and volunteering relationships. 8. The pond and the western activity sequence (over/under/around/through and weavers’ way) were selected as the projects to be developed to schematic design. Many other elements within the plan could be developed with in-house expertise. 9. MLB will provide contact information for the Abington Art Center, relative to artistic interpretations on display there of natural habitats and other ‘green’ artwork. 10. MLB will attend the March 9 meeting of the Board and give a brief presentation of the state of the master plan. 11. The next meeting of the Study Committee was scheduled for March 18 at 4:30.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Laurie Bachman DATE: 3-23-10 RE: Notes of Study Committee Meeting 3-18-10 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan - Projects Attending: Laurie Bachman, Executive Director Stacy Carr-Poole, Director of Education Chris Wales, Habitat Manager Lisa Thomas, Property Committee Chair Emily Crane Rob Lambert Bill Reid Mary Jane Roach Steve Schreiner Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO
The purpose of the meeting was to review schematic design development of the pond and western site sequences. Following are comments and observations offered.
1. Materials for basic site improvements (steps/trails/walls) are to be defined. 2. Wheelbarrow/maintenance access for western sequence is to be provided via the eastern loop (barn to Lenape Village) 3. Should western sequence be installed as a circulation corridor initially, with additional improvements to be added as annual/seasonal ‘highlights’? 4. Materials for project development should be reconsidered to insure durability/ease of maintenance. 5. Ponds should be reconsidered re: size/multiple pools and maintainability. 6. There is no electricity available uphill….alternatives for powering pond aeration should be considered. 7. Mary Jane Roach will investigate cost of providing electricity at the top of the hill. 8. The next meeting is scheduled for April 29 at 4:30.
MEMORANDUM FROM: Mara Baird TO: Laurie Bachman DATE: 5-3-10 RE: Notes of Study Committee Meeting 4-29-10 Riverbend Environmental Education Center Updated Master Site Development Plan – Materials & Costs Attending: Laurie Bachman, Executive Director Stacy Carr-Poole, Director of Education Chris Wales, Habitat Manager Lisa Thomas, Property Committee Chair Rob Lambert Mara Baird, MLBAIRD & CO
The purpose of the meeting was to review preliminary plan for wayfinding and interpretive signage locations, preliminary master plan phasing, materials selections and project costs. Riverbend will review information presented and provide any additional comments/requests. 1. Signage a. A directional sign and general site information is important in the parking lot. b. A more detailed site map should be provided at the barn. c. Riverbend has an existing standard of bronze plaques for donor recognition. d. MBaird will provide contact information for an environmental graphics/wayfinding designer regarding planning/design services for signage standards. 2. Materials & Costs a. Riverbend will consider paving materials presented (including recycled tires) as well as bituminous. Riverbend will consider a hierarchy of paths to include a smaller pedestrian route (4’) and a wider primary/service route (8’).
125
b. MBaird will provide contact information to R. Lambert for the Stabilizer systems. c. MBaird will contact Stabilizer systems to determine additional project locations within the area. d. The Living Bridge will be relocated to a less primary route. e. The bridge at the parking lot will be widened to 6’. f. The well will be removed from the plan. Riverbend has explored the potential with a specialist who did not deem site conditions favorable. g. Riverbend has received preliminary information regarding continuation of electric service toward the proposed pavilion site. h. The master plan will include additional information regarding management guidelines and recommended plant types.
14. Appendix AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS LISTING Master Site Development Plan, June 2004 Lower Merion Township Topographic Maps (E,F,G13) Base Plan (drawn from records &aerial/Rolph Sauer/2003) Base Plan (drawn from records/Yerkes/2002) Features Location Plan (no source/date) Trails Plan (no source/printed 1992) PA Forest Stewardship Plan (Natural Lands Trust/1992) On-Lot Sewage Disposal System Application (1956) AWBOA Planting List 2008 Plant Inventory 2008-2011 Strategic Plan 2008 Annual Report Spring 2008 Sustainability Report Around the ‘Bend – Winter 2007 Issue Brochures à Riverbend à Trail Guide à Education Programs à Year-Round Camp à Exploration Camp à Nature Clubs à Birthday Parties à Membership 2009-2010 Family Program Calendar Property Survey/plan of deer fence Bird Observation Area Documents (survey & as-built documentation) Proposed Bird Observation Deck (plan & rendering) Geology Report List of Facilities Tasks
127
VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF SAW MILL RUN AT RIVERBEND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER Existing Conditions Preliminary observations regarding the condition of Sawmill Run and the Spring Mill Road culvert at the entrance to the environmental center were made by a team including two water resource engineers and a landscape architect from LandStudies, Inc on October 2, 2009. The following is a summary of their observations with respect to Saw Mill Run and the Spring Mill Road culvert. x
x
x
x
The stream from the Spring Mill Road culvert downstream to the Schuylkill Expressway culvert is severely degraded and has cut down to bedrock. The exposed bedrock is fractured and weathering in some areas and will continue to down-cut over time. This reach also shows that significant lateral migration has occurred with high potential for additional significant migration. The stream will tend to migrate laterally and will continue to move towards the low point of the bedrock in the valley. Debris jams from fallen trees and significant bedload deposition (the accumulation of rocks and debris deposited during significant storm flows) adds uncertainty to the rate and direction of the lateral migration. This lateral movement will eventually compromise some sections of the old road bed along the left valley wall. (Figs. 14-1, 14-2: Spring Mill Run: Downstream from the Culvert to I-76 Underpass) Spring Mill Road along Sawmill Run is severely damaged due to erosion from flows along the roadway. One of the primary causes of the erosion of the roadway is from flow overtopping the culvert at the entrance to the Environmental Center and continuing to flow along the roadway instead of flowing back into the channel. The roadway is consistently lower than the ground on both sides, and acts as a channel during storm events that overtop the banks. This condition also causes runoff from the adjacent hillslope to collect and travel down the roadway. (Fig. 14-3: Spring Mill Road) The Spring Mill Road Culvert overtops periodically during large storm events. This overtopping has compromised the integrity of the road surface, and a cut has formed on the downstream side of the road embankment due to overtopping flows dropping steeply into the incised channel below. A significant flood event could complete this cut through the roadway, opening a bypass channel around the culvert and destroy the road. Should this occur, there would also be severe consequences to the upstream channel, as described below. (Figs. 14-4, 14-5: Spring Mill Road Culvert) The road surface is folded at the upstream edge of the roadway which indicates that seepage and piping through roadway base or surface is also occurring and has extended to the upstream edge of roadway. With this condition further erosion of the roadway fill base material, will occur with storm events that do not necessarily need to overtop the roadway. (Fig. 14-6: Spring Mill Road at Entrance)
129
x
x
The channel upstream of the culvert has previously experienced long term bed degradation but not to the extent of the downstream channel. The culvert has acted to hold grade at the road crossing, preventing severe headcutting and gully formation from moving upstream. The backwater condition created by the culvert further protects the reach immediately upstream from high shear stresses during large flood events. If headcutting would continue upstream of the culvert, the upper end of the parking lot would be impacted. (Fig. 14-7: Spring Mill Run Upstream of the Culvert) The stream adjacent to the low corner of the parking lot appears to be located within the backwater influence of the culvert during the larger flow events. Should a structural change be made to reduce the bed elevation or reduce the frequency and backwater extent upstream of the culvert, degradation of the channel bed and further channel instability may result and compromise the lower area of the parking lot. Further degradation of the channel adjacent to the parking facility would place the majority of the parking lot at risk to erosion. (Fig. 14-8: Lower Corner of Parking Area)
Typical Issues To understand how to address these problems, we must first understand the historical impacts that caused dramatic changes to the landscape. Legacy Sediment is deposition that built up behind the thousands of dams constructed during the early days of European settlement along the East Coast. These sediments eroded and filled in the stream valleys as a result of forest clearing and poor agricultural practices beginning in the 18th and continuing into the early 20th centuries. The height of the sediment trapped behind the dams relates directly to the height of the dam breast, which relates to the height of stream banks where legacy sediments deposited. Although most of the old dams deteriorated or were removed, the sediment behind them remained, covering the original porous, organic floodplain soils and the gravel and cobble beds of once-shallow stream channels. Over time, as the dams disappeared, the water behind them flowed faster, cut down through the legacy sediments in the channels, and left behind the high terraces we continue to call floodplains as well as straight, bare stream bank walls (Fig. 14-9: Existing Conditions). Evidence of these conditions are visible along the Saw Mill Run. (Fig. 14-10: Saw Mill Run Erosion) Deposition and Bedload When stream flow slows down because of man-made obstructions, bends in the channel, dams, debris jams, or a widening of the channel, the reduction in the force of the flow allows bed load and sediment to settle out of the flow. This deposition of sediment is referred to as “aggradation,” or a rising of the grade, or elevation, of the channel bed in that location. Deposition can cause the stream to flow around it, forcing the flow into the opposite bank, which erodes the bank. Deposition can also cause the flow (which is at a lower elevation) to back up behind it, slow down, create more deposition, cause flooding during high flows, and cause the backed up water to churn behind the obstruction of deposited sediment. This process essentially “scours” the stream bed and creates even more of a difference in stream bed elevations. Aggradation and depositional areas raises the stream bed elevation, decreasing the channel and floodplain capacity, and can increase the frequency of damaging flooding
on roadways and property. Environmentally, excessive deposition can bury aquatic habitat, change water temperature, and significantly alter the entire aquatic ecosystem. (Fig. 14-11: Deposition) Constrictions or “Pinch Points” – are encroachments into a stream channel or stream valley that create a narrowing of the channel or valley at that point. Bridge abutments, roadways, culverts, narrow stream-valley walls, man-made walls along stream banks, rock outcroppings, and even large debris jams can create a constriction that confines the flow, causes the flow to back up behind the constriction, and thereby raises the water surface elevation. This raised water surface elevation behind the construction can extend upstream for thousands of feet. The increased water surface elevation behind the constriction can result in increased water velocity downstream of the constriction, causing scour and erosion. The constriction can also create a backwater or ponding condition upstream, which can allow larger sediments and debris to drop out of the flow and settle in the channel, thereby further raising the elevation and causing increased flooding events. (Fig. 14-12: Constriction Culvert) Erosion - Erosion along streams is caused by unstable channels that are 1) moving downward through legacy sediments, 2) moving horizontally, or laterally, as they carve out new floodplains at lower elevations, 3) being forced through bridge abutments or constrictions to flow into stream banks at the wrong angle, and 4) flowing high and with excessive force during rain events or snow melt through channels that are too deep. Erosion chokes waterways with excessive sediment and nutrients and destroys aquatic habitat. Erosion also threatens existing infrastructure and causes loss of land, undermines roads and bridges, threatens buildings near streams, and can lead to inappropriate and damaging downstream deposition and flooding. (Fig. 14-13: Erosion) Direction of Flow - When stream channel encroachments, such as bridges and large debris jams, obstruct stream flow, they can change the direction of the flow, which, especially during high flows, can cause erosion near the constriction and create a ponded or backwater condition upstream of the encroachment. This condition can lead to bedload aggradation or bar formation, which can contribute to increased flooding. (Fig. 14-14: Direction of Flow) Considerations for Drainage Improvements along Saw Mill Run Based on the site observations and understanding of the issues impacting the stream, floodplain dynamic, the following outlines some considerations for improvements: x
To address problems at the culvert: o Maintain the current stream bed elevation (i.e. a structure with a bottom) o Maintain (or increase) the backwater condition upstream of the culvert (i.e. a structure of similar capacity) o Provide a stable means of conveying overtopping flows back to the downstream channel o Realign the culvert o Reconstruct and possibly adjust the road elevation o Construct wingwalls and a headwall on the upstream side of the culvert to increase the area impacted by backwater, control the overtopping
131
o o
o
elevation and the location where the overtopping flows can be conveyed in a more stable manner. Provide downstream grade control to prevent further degradation of the channel immediately below the culvert The headwall protection on the upstream side could be extended upstream along the left bank, which is showing signs of erosion, to prevent lateral migration from scouring behind the wingwall and impacting the entrance roadway to the center. Relocate the crossing further upstream with additional roadway improvements to convey the overtopping flows back into the channel downstream.
x
Considerations to address stability of the downstream channel, approaching the Schuylkill Expressway: o Remove remnants of the old bridge o Excavate to provide additional flow area, especially where the stream is migrating towards the low point of the bedrock
x
Grade the old road bed to encourage flow towards the stream instead of parallel to the road bed. This could be achieved in conjunction with grading of the streambanks (i.e. cut in the valley and fill on the slope). Currently some of the stream flow overtopping the road at the culvert is directed down the old road bed rather than back into the stream. Correcting this problem at the crossing would eliminate flow; however there could still be a stability problem with upland runoff flowing down the abandoned road.
VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF SAW MILL RUN AT RIVERBEND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER – IMAGES
Figs. 14-1, 14-2: Spring Mill Run: Downstream from the Culvert to I-76 Underpass
Fig. 14-3: Spring Mill Road
Figs. 14-4, 14-5: Spring Mill Road Culvert
133
Fig. 14-6: Spring Mill Road at Entrance
Fig. 14-7: Saw Mill Run Upstream of Culvert
Fig. 14-8: Lower Corner of Parking Area
Fig. 14-9: Existing Conditions
Fig. 14-10: Saw Mill Run Erosion
Fig. 14-11: Deposition
Fig. 14-12: Constriction Culvert
Fig. 14-13: Erosion Fig. 14-14: Direction of Flow
135
SAW MILL RUN STREAM RESTORATION Saw Mill Run downstream of the culvert at the pedestrian entrance to Riverbend severely degraded. To improve this section of the stream and restore some function the floodplain, a geomorphic assessment, along with a detailed understanding historical impacts to the site to determine the cause and effect, will be needed improve stability and function. The following are the minimum first steps necessary prepare a plan for a long term solution to this area:
is to of to to
Background Information Data and information examine include but not be limited to: x Determine the influence by historic mills\dams and constrictions upstream and downstream from the Riverbend property. x Analyze stormwater management data for the site and watershed/region x Map the site history using overlays to identify changes over time x Determine how the site is to be used and accessed x Coordinate property owners x Determine any Township or permitting requirements x Explore strategic funding opportunities Visual Geomorphic Assessment Conduct a visual geomorphic assessment to identify sediment sources, depositional areas, vertical grade controls, and causes of instability within the stream system. The width, depth, location of the stream (and its floodplain), size of sediment the stream moves, and underlying geology are the primary variables measured in effort to establish existing baseline conditions. This information is critical to understanding the problem in effort to propose a solution. Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis A hydrology model of the watershed will be developed to determine the existing peak flows through the site. Existing channel hydraulics will be modeled using HEC-RAS. The hydraulics model of the existing channel will be developed using field surveyed cross sections and structure data. The H&H analysis will establish baseline flood conditions and stability data that will be used to develop concept design solutions
137
FOREST STEWARDSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE
139
141
143
145
147
FOREST STEWARDSHIP MANAGEMENT Visual Assessment Comprehensive Land Services: Patrick Fasano: Certified Pennsylvania Forest Stewardship Professional. The following general observations relate forest conditions on the Riverbend property. In areas where there has been some cutting/clearing there is heavy encroachment from Ailanthus altissima. The most prevalent invasive species present on the entire property is Akebia quinata. Also present: Multiflora Rose, Japanese Honeysuckle, Oriental bittersweet, Japanese Knotweed, and some Norway maple. This is especially important to the younger Successional woods near the environmental center. The prior forest assessment broke out the two small woodlots into two management units. For this initial assessment, combining the woodlands into 2 management units is more practical. Management unit 1 includes the small Successional woodlands near the education center. Management unit 2 which should be sampled with plot cruise criteria in the future refers to the 14 acre mature woodlands. Site Description Successional Woodlands near the Education Center - The impact of a number of invasive species is heaviest in any of the areas that are not mowed or, managed / maintained. The native species composition is primarily composed of Sassafras, White Ash, (which is in decline) Tulip Poplar, Black Cherry, Black Locust, Walnut, and other pioneer species. The general health and conditions of these young Successional woodlands are fair to poor. Planting of native trees and shrubs has been implemented. Because of the deer enclosure, deer browsing is not an issue. Placement of new tree shelters will allow more spraying for invasive species close to the tree plantings. 14 Acre Woodland north of the Riverbend Primary Use Site - Mature forest stand of approximately 14 acres has a species composition dominated by mature Tulip Poplar with an average diameter of 17 inches. The even aged stand would benefit from a light commercial thinning to diversify species composition and remove lower grade or damaged and diseased mature trees. Access for removal of timber material is still in question. If there is a thinning conducted, it is highly recommended that extensive planting of native trees in tree shelters, as there is significant competition from a variety of invasive species. There is virtually no natural regeneration or pole sized deciduous hardwood species present to restock this stand if there is a removal of material ad additional opening of the forest canopy. Stewardship Objectives Determine the existing conditions, species composition and make recommendations to improve forest health and management to improve species diversity and control invasive species that are reducing the health of the existing forest stands. Priorities of management objectives were identified by Riverbend Environmental Center staff through the completion of the forest Stewardship Landowner Questionnaire attached here.
149
Recommendations: Management Unit 1 – Successional Woodlands near the Education Center x
Continue to plant additional native trees and shrubs for species diversity, with the potential of removing some of the poor quality Sassafras, and other species in poor health.
x
Conduct a new species composition study, and assess the current condition of the woodlands and other species present to plan on future management.
x
The following outline generalizes the management recommendations for the young Successional woods near the environmental center.
x
Because this is an environmental education center, I would recommend a variety of treatments in small sample plot areas (perhaps 1/10 of an acre). For example: 1st area, conduct no management. 2nd area, use only mechanical control 3rd area use only chemical control. 4th area combine chemical and mechanical. 5th area, plant new trees/shrubs without shelters 6th area plant trees/shrubs with shelters. 7th area have only volunteers manually remove invasive species. Signage is recommended to explain the variations in treatments. This would also help to determine the success/failure of various treatments. Documentation of time and materials for management costs will also assist the center to determine the best management tools to improve the areas.
Management Unit 2 – 14 Acre Woodland North of the Riverbend Primary Use Site x
For this mature woodlot, line plot and Basal area sampling should be conducted to determine the current stocking of this stand and provide a base line for calculations to determine the need for a light thinning. Plot sampling will also provide the information needed to provide an estimate of the value of a commercial thinning.
x
Identify and obtain permission to access the tree stand from a public road on the northern most boundary of the site. A level staging area is available, but on private property. Permission to use the staging area and access the site through private property will be needed.
x
If permission is granted for access and staging purposes, a woodland assessment by conducting a line plot and basal area sample plots of the existing stand of trees should be performed in order to identify, and assess trees for potential light commercial thinning. Comprehensive Land Services should prepare a management plan identifying replacement trees, understory planting, to promote healthy growth and the potential for demonstration plots. The utilization of sample plot variations as recommended for the younger woodlands near the environmental center, will also serve as an educational tool.
x
Coordinate public education, especially for adjacent neighbors, related to the benefits of the light commercial harvest if access is available.
x
Select a qualified logging contractor for the tree removal and prepare the necessary specifications, and permits for this work.
x
Hire professional forester to oversee the selected contractor and monitor tree removal and restoration efforts to comply with all regulatory agencies.
x
A full ten year forest stewardship plan for this mature woodlot will serve as the guideline to provide monitoring services to Riverbend for a period of 10 years. This is the standard time period for a forest stewardship plan according to the standards of Pennsylvania DCNR (the oversight agencies for the forest Stewardship program).
151
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Pesticides: Topical & Chemical Fact Sheets You are here: EPA Home Pesticides About Pesticides Fact Sheets Health and Safety Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Principles
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Principles Este Web page está disponible en español What is IPM? 2. How do IPM programs work?
1.
Pesticides and Food:
What ‘IPM’ Means
IPM in Schools
Household IPM
Set Action Thresholds Monitor and Identify Pests Prevention Control 1. 2. 3. 4.
Do most growers use IPM? How do you know if the food you buy is grown using IPM? If I grow my own fruits and vegetables, can I practice IPM in my garden? For more information
1. What is IPM? Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that relies on a combination of common-sense practices. IPM programs use current, comprehensive information on the life cycles of pests and their interaction with the environment. This information, in combination with available pest control methods, is used to manage pest damage by the most economical means, and with the least possible hazard to people, property, and the environment. The IPM approach can be applied to both agricultural and non-agricultural settings, such as the home, garden, and workplace. IPM takes advantage of all appropriate pest management options including, but not limited to, the judicious use of pesticides. In contrast, organic food production applies many of the same concepts as IPM but limits the use of pesticides to those that are produced from natural sources, as opposed to synthetic chemicals.
153
1. How do IPM programs work? IPM is not a single pest control method but, rather, a series of pest management evaluations, decisions and controls. In practicing IPM, growers who are aware of the potential for pest infestation follow a four-tiered approach. The four steps include: Set Action Thresholds
Before taking any pest control action, IPM first sets an action threshold, a point at which pest populations or environmental conditions indicate that pest control action must be taken. Sighting a single pest does not always mean control is needed. The level at which pests will either become an economic threat is critical to guide future pest control decisions. Monitor and Identify Pests
Not all insects, weeds, and other living organisms require control. Many organisms are innocuous, and some are even beneficial. IPM programs work to monitor for pests and identify them accurately, so that appropriate control decisions can be made in conjunction with action thresholds. This monitoring and identification removes the possibility that pesticides will be used when they are not really needed or that the wrong kind of pesticide will be used. Prevention
As a first line of pest control, IPM programs work to manage the crop, lawn, or indoor space to prevent pests from becoming a threat. In an agricultural crop, this may mean using cultural methods, such as rotating between different crops, selecting pest-resistant varieties, and planting pest-free rootstock. These control methods can be very effective and cost-efficient and present little to no risk to people or the environment. Control
Once monitoring, identification, and action thresholds indicate that pest control is required, and preventive methods are no longer effective or available, IPM programs then evaluate the proper control method both for effectiveness and risk. Effective, less risky pest controls are chosen first, including highly targeted chemicals, such as pheromones to disrupt pest mating, or mechanical control, such as trapping or weeding. If further monitoring, identifications and action thresholds indicate that less risky controls are not working, then additional pest control methods would be employed, such as targeted spraying of pesticides. Broadcast spraying of non-specific pesticides is a last resort.
1. Do most growers use IPM? With these steps, IPM is best described as a continuum. Many, if not most, agricultural growers identify their pests before spraying. A smaller subset of growers use less risky pesticides such as pheromones. All of these growers are on the IPM continuum. The goal is to move growers further along the continuum to using all appropriate IPM techniques. 1. How do you know if the food you buy is grown using IPM? In most cases, food grown using IPM practices is not identified in the marketplace like organic food. There is no national certification for growers using IPM, as the United States Department of Agriculture has developed for organic foods. Since IPM is a complex pest control process, not merely a series of practices, it is impossible to use one IPM definition for all foods and all areas of the country. Many individual commodity growers, for such crop as potatoes and strawberries, are working to define what IPM means for their crop and region, and IPM-labeled foods are available in limited areas. With definitions, growers could begin to market more of their products as IPM-Grown, giving consumers another choice in their food purchases.
1. If I grow my own fruits and vegetables, can I practice IPM in my garden? Yes, the same principles used by large farms can be applied to your own garden by following the four-tiered approach outlined above. For more specific information on practicing IPM in your garden, you can contact your state Extension Services for the services of a Master Gardener. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/factsheets/ip m.htm Last updated on Thursday, September 10, 2009
1. For More Information on IPM Pesticides and Food: What "Integrated Pest Management" Means EPA is encouraging the innovation of biological pesticides, also known as biopesticides. Find your state's Extension Service Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) Radcliffe's IPM World Textbook IPMNet
155
ILLUSTRATION SOURCE NOTES Figure 3-1: Watershed Map – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 3-2: Historical Map 1600s – Lower Merion Historical Society, www.lowermerionhistory.org, 2010. Figure 3-3: Historical Map 1887 – Lower Merion Historical Society, www.lowermerionhistory.org, 2010. Figure 3-4: Historical Map 1942 – Lower Merion Historical Society, www.lowermerionhistory.org, 2010. Figure 3-5: Historic Floodplain Conditions, illustration – LandStudies, 2010. Figures 3-6, 3-7, 3 -8: Historic Clearing, photos - Douglas Macneal, A Penns Creek Companion, Penns Valley Conservation Association, Penns Valley, PA, 2005. Figures 3-9, 3-10: Evidence of Historic Uses, photos – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 3-11: Landscape Zones, map – LandStudies, 2010. Figures 3-12, 3-13: Habitat Management Area, photos – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 3-14: Mowed Open Area, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 3-15: Deer Browsed Understory, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 3-16: Understory Within Fenced Area, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 3-17: Bluebird Meadow, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 3-18: Drainage Analysis, map – LandStudies, 2010. Figures 3-19, 3-20: Saw Mill Run at the Parking Area, photos – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 3-21: Dragonfly Pond, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 3-22: Site Features Diagram – ML BAIRD & CO, 2010. Figure 4-1: Preliminary Master Plan – ML BAIRD & CO / LandStudies, 2010. Figure 5-1: Revised Master Plan – ML BAIRD & CO / LandStudies, 2010. Figures 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5: Nesting boxes, online images – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-6: ‘Canopy Shrub’ Rhododendron, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-7: Topiary Hut, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-8: Rabbit Burrow, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-9: Spider Web, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-10: Wasp Nest, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-11: Summer Palace (art installation– Patrick Dougherty), online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-12: Crow in Nest, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-13: Pond Edge, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-14: Rock Falls, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-15: Rock Swale, online image – www.google.com, 2010.
157
Figure 5-16: Living Bridge, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-17: Amphitheater, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-18: Amphitheater (Swarthmore College), online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-19: Master Plan Landscape Zones – ML BAIRD & CO / LandStudies, 2010 Figure 5-20: Reclamation Demonstration, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-21: Woodland Buffer, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figures 5-22, 5-23, 5 -24: Old Field Succession, online images – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-25: Bluebird Meadow, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 5-26: Wet Meadow, online image – www.google.com, 2010. Figure 6-1: Master Plan Projects – West Loop – ML BAIRD & CO / LandStudies, 2010. Figure 6-2: Burrow, illustration – ML BAIRD & CO / Barbara Siegel Ryan, 2010. Figure 6-3: Cocoon, illustration – ML BAIRD & CO / Barbara Siegel Ryan, 2010. Figure 6-4: Crow’s Nest Lookout, illustration – ML BAIRD & CO / Barbara Siegel Ryan, 2010. Figure 6-5: Master Plan Projects – Ponds – ML BAIRD & CO / LandStudies, 2010. Figure 7-1: Final Master Plan – ML BAIRD & CO / LandStudies. 2010. Figure 7-2: Final Master Plan Projects – Ponds – ML BAIRD & CO / LandStudies, 2010. Figure 8-1: Wayfinding and Interpretation Locations Plan – ML BAIRD & CO, 2010. Figure 9-1: Phasing Plan – ML BAIRD & CO, 2010. Figures 14-1, 14-2: Spring Mill Run: Downstream from the Culvert to I-76 Underpass, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 14-3: Spring Mill Road, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figures 14-4, 14-5: Spring Mill Road Culvert, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 14-6: Spring Mill Road at Entrance, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 14-7: Saw Mill Run Upstream of Culvert, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 14-8: Lower Corner of Parking Area, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 14-9: Existing Conditions, illustration – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 14-10: Saw Mill Run Erosion, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 14-11: Deposition, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 14-12: Constriction Culvert, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 14-13: Erosion, photo – LandStudies, 2010. Figure 14-14: Direction of Flow, photo – LandStudies, 2010.
Cover design montage: Online images, www.riverbendeec.org, www.google.com, 2010.
