Kimberly run preserve
Download 2.65 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Members Survey
- MANAGEMENT GOALS OBJECTIVES
| Old drainage ditch in forest
streams Kimberly Run itself travels from northeast to southwest across the Kimberly Run preserve, drawing in two major wetland tributaries from the north side. The first is an old drainage ditch that accepts the flow from the Louie-Beach wetland mitigation project along the SCC boundary. This straight, unregulated ditch enters Kimberly Run perhaps a meter below the grade of the wetland outlet. A second, meandering tributary downstream drains an extensive shrub swamp wetland in upper west portion of the preserve. A third tributary flows intermittently from the bog on the east side of the preserve, which is itself fed by hillside springs. Other smaller springs and seeps contribute to Kimberly Run on its way through the preserve. Water quality in Kimberly Run is of some concern, as it has a frequently pale and cloudy color, though usually transparent. Few fish are observed from the banks, and monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates indicates a less than healthy stream environment. Water chemistry monitoring does not indicate chronically high levels of pollutants, but more detailed monitoring is underway to determine whether short-term pollution episodes or particular tributaries are limiting water quality. The results of benthic macroinvertebrate study (Table 2) show three of five sample sites have a “poor” Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) in 2003, with the other two reported “fair.” IBI was generally higher in 2002 than 2003, though more years are needed to determine a trend. Site B is a tributary and probably too small for comparative purposes. Site E is actually upstream of SCC lands. The IBI is calculated from a number of indicator taxa, including mayflies, caddisflies and stoneflies. Not a single mayfly larvae has been sampled in two years, although a few flying individuals have been seen. Table 2. Index of Biological Integrity for 5 benthic macroinvertebrate sampling sites. Sites run from east to west, downstream (A) to upstream (E), with site B on a tributary where insufficient macroinvertebrates did not allow for a 2002 IBI.
As noted in the section on riparian forests, some upper portions of Kimberly Run show pronounced downcutting below the surrounding grade. Another important feature of streams, large woody debris, however, is present in good quantity. Streambank trees have fallen into the water at frequent intervals, providing potential food and cover for fish and aquatic invertebrates, as well as slowing streambed erosion. However, a factor in creating this woody debris is no doubt the steep streambanks that allow the water to undermine tree roots. On the main stem of Kimberly Run in summer, waterfowl, especially wood ducks, find cover in the bends along the stream, and ebony jewelwing damselflies adorn overhanging shrubs. There is an occasional kingfisher or flock of cedar waxwings hawking insects. Of some interest is the lack of evidence for turtles of any kind thus far, though common species such as snapping turtles would be expected. Infrastructure roads and buildings Road access to the SCC pavilion is gained by entering the Dept. of Transportation yard on Menser Road. The gravel and dirt track parallels the Pennsylvania Turnpike along the edge of fields above the Louie-Beach Wetland Mitigation project before crossing onto SCC lands. It then follows farm lanes to the edge of the woods and pavilion. Other gravel road access is possible to the west end of the preserve on a private lane, via a spur from Rt. 219 (single lane). SCC has recently purchased a parcel on this end of the preserve, though the possibility of obtaining future highway access from this side is uncertain.
An informal trail from the field edge just east of the pavilion enters the woods on an old cinder roadbed, crossing Kimberly Run on an old bridge. Informal trails continue from this point, though an expanded trail system is being developed. A proposed trail, flagged in orange and pink, continues from the bridge east along Kimberly Run briefly, then gently uphill to encircle tributaries of the southern bog. Upon meeting a larger tributary to Kimberly Run itself, it descends again to the stream. An alternative or additional trail proposal would follow closer along the south side of Kimberly Run. SCC volunteers recently obtained used surplus timber donated by the Allegheny Highlands Trail to rebuild the existing bridge.
General direction for Kimberly Run Preserve management was solicited from SCC members and local secondary school teachers. Members SurveyTo determine Somerset County Conservancy membership opinions on management and use of the Kimberly Run Preserve, a survey was developed with SCC board input (Appendix 1). The opinion survey was distributed to attendees of the 2002 annual meeting and then in the summer of 2003 sent by Wells Creek Watershed Association intern Becky Costea to the entire SCC membership. A total of 23 survey responses were obtained, representing households with a total of 57 people. For two respondents who completed the survey twice, their second response was reported. Survey results for question 1 indicate strong support for a wide variety of land uses, including nature observation (23), hiking (22), environmental education (20), deer hunting (19), upland and small game hunting (19), academic research (19), cross-country skiing (18), picnicking (18), fly fishing (18), bait fishing (16), and demonstrating wildlife management practices (16). Less support was seen for camping (9), trapping (9), mountain biking (5) and horseback riding (4). Write-in responses supported duck hunting (1), wild plant seed collecting (1), wildflower identification (1) and photography (1). Riding of all-terrain vehicles was not supported, and four respondents requested that the activity be specifically prohibited. Activities in which respondents and their families would participate included hiking (10), nature observation (9), picnicking (8), upland game hunting (6), deer hunting (5), camping (5), cross-country skiing (5), and other activities. An interesting comparison is noted between activities endorsed and those in which respondents would participate, with regard to camping. Although camping did not receive wide support, it would be practiced by those who supported it. By comparison, trapping was supported at the same level but not practiced by any respondents. Question 3 asked whether activities should be open to the public or restricted to certain groups. Few respondents supported any restrictions, and several wrote comments that activities should be open to everyone. There were a few comments in support of restricting picnicking to SCC members (1); restricting picnicking (2), camping (2), skiing (1) and horseback riding (1) to SCC members and guests; and restricting research to local schools (1). Most intensive land management activities received support - wetland restoration being the most popular (20) - except for forest road system development (5). Two respondents also requested that while they supported reforestation of some areas, the current mix of field to forest should be maintained. For facility and road improvements, question 5, the most supported improvement would be the upgrading of restrooms to composting commodes (19), with three more respondents requesting flush commodes if possible. Access road improvements to allow cars and buses were also heavily supported (18). Other improvements supported by more than half of respondents included trail marking and register installation (14), bridge replacement (14; already underway), and kiosk installation (12). Also supported by about half of respondents were handicapped accessible restrooms (11), and parking area improvements (10). Write-in comments included requests to keep the preserve as natural as possible, to minimize development, and to advertise the preserve to potential visitors.
One important purpose of the acquisition of the Kimberly Run Preserve was to make the land available for educational use by local school students. In order to assess the interest and need for educational opportunities at the Kimberly Run Preserve, an educator’s survey was developed and sent to Somerset County Schools in November 2002. Keith Largent with the Somerset County Soil Conservation District provided a list of school contacts. Dan Siebert and Jeff Payne provided comments on a survey draft. Eight of 35 surveys were returned, mostly by junior and senior high school science teachers. Interpretation of responses indicates the possible need for infrastructure to be upgraded to handle large vehicles and groups, and for resource expert assistance with lesson plans and field trips. Eight teachers from 4 schools responded – Rockwood Area Junior-Senior High School, Turkeyfoot Valley School, Shanksville-Stonycreek School, and Salisbury-Elk Lick High School – a 23% response rate. Students taught were elementary (2), junior/senior high school (5), and senior high school (2). Respondent teachers of older students were general science, biology, chemistry, life science and earth science teachers. Student levels were general (7), special needs (4), and gifted and talented (3). Two teachers coach Envirothon teams. Field trip sizes ranged from 25 to 50 students. Six teachers have field trip funding sources available, one did not. Vehicles available were school buses (6) and large vans (2). Estimated travel times to Kimberly Run Preserve ranged from 30 to 60 minutes. Two teachers did not know where the preserve was located. One teacher suggested that the SCC brochure provide a map. Teachers said they would visit the preserve in spring and fall - in April and May, and September and October. They would visit in the morning (1) or all day (4). One teacher had a student who would require wheelchair access. No teachers said that their visit would be limited by the current sanitary facilities. However, some noted that a chemical port-a-pot (2), water pump (1), electric outlet (2), or additional pit toilets (1) would be helpful. No teachers were interested in an overnight camping experience. Half of the teachers had lesson plans or units that would be enhanced by a preserve visit (4). All teachers were interested in pre-packaged lesson plans geared toward Kimberly Run. However, two noted that these plans would need to meet state standards. Teachers were interested in plans for science (8), art (1), and literature (1) lessons. Most teachers were interested in having professionals or experts meet classes to lead a lesson (7). Topics of interest were wide-ranging, with birds and wetlands the most frequently selected topics (5). Additional comments were limited, but included two general positive comments, one request for travel grants, and one note that no field trips are made except travel to Envirothon competitions. In interpreting the results of this survey, the emphasis on science classes was not surprising. Field trip sizes were large - groups of 25 to 50 students would require either a high degree of supervision and assistance, or would need to be broken into smaller groups. Both of these approaches would need to be considered in terms of site infrastructure. Staging areas, smaller group sites, and capacity of toilet facilities would need to be considered. Although teachers had travel resources available, there may be some funding limitations that were not brought out by this survey. Respondents made comments such as “some funding available,” or “must be approved by school board.” Teachers may have to take personal initiative to obtain funding approval for field trips. One teacher said that grant assistance would be helpful. Because buses are the main vehicle to be used for field trips, preserve roads will need to be adequate for bus access. Adding a SCC brochure map or developing a Kimberly Run brochure may be a good suggestion. The window of opportunity for field trips appears to be limited - only four months of the year. Wheelchair access will be necessary, but the real question is how extensive it should be. As noted in “class characteristics” above the current sanitary facilities may not meet the needs of groups of 25 or more if regular visits occur. Teachers were very interested in lesson plans and help from resource experts. This may be something that SCC can help provide or support, and it may also point to a larger need within the school district. Incorporating Kimberly Run Preserve into Envirothon activities may be something that SCC and other natural resource agencies and partners could consider.
These goals and objectives for management of Kimberly Run Preserve are derived from meetings with the Somerset County Conservancy Board of Directors and the questionnaire provided to SCC members. Directory: groups -> public -> documents -> document document -> Kyle Shenk, (717) 230-8166, Key Land Trust documents -> Strictly for internal use eb. 1/2011: Opening Remarks by the Executive Director J. Sheeran, Executive Director documents -> Feature start Feature end Specifications start Specification table start documents -> Feature start Feature end Specifications start Specification table start document -> 2011 High Conservation Value Forests Analysis & Identification documents -> O&M in the ip age: Heading for a new direction documents -> Huawei boost: Unleashing the power of ultra-broadband documents -> Exploring O&M for ip+otn synergy Download 2.65 Mb. Share with your friends:
|