Healthy People//Healthy Ecosystems: a small park's role in riparian appreciation by Brian Kowalski

HEALTHY PEOPLE // HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS a small parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in riparian appreciation

Brian Kowalski Master of Landscape Architecture Ball State University Faculty Adviser- Dongying Li

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would not be what it is without the amazing support and encouragement I have had throughout its development. In my mind this project has been as much about the journey as it has been the final submission. A special thank you to my adviser Dongying Li. I have gained so much from your leadership relating to research and design. Your dedication, ideas, and feedback throughout this challenging project made for a great experience. To my course instructors from 651-- Martha Hunt & John Motloch, 652-- Susan Tomizawa & Rachel Johnson and 606-- Ann Hildner & Les Smith. Thank you all for taking interest in my ideas, while guiding me with criticism. You all were the core of this creative project sequence and I appreciate all of the hours you have spent reviewing materials and allowing for presentations. A big thanks for my studio cohort. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s been fun banding together and growing as friends throughout the years. I wish you all luck as we go out and face the big challenges of the world. Thanks to Phil Tevis for discussing my project and for helping me with some of the technical details. Finally, thanks to the LA Department for creating a rewarding program and for molding me as an emerging professional.

ABSTRACT Located in Ypsilanti, Michigan and once the site of a paper mill, this 1.1-mile stream restoration project abutting 6.5 acres of parkland explored the idea that there is a connection between human health and ecosystem health. Focused on the removal of a defunct in-channel dam and the design of a small park area, this project intended to generate a new urban environment that provided itself as place for user access and engagement with nature and the associated mental and physical benefits that result from this interaction, as well as to provide a better understanding for the over-arching integration of healthy people and healthy ecosystems.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview 1.2 Problem Statement

1-2 3

2. METHODS + FINDINGS 2.1 Primary Findings 2.2 Interview Summaries 2.3 Questionnaire

4-7 8 9-11

3. SITE INVENTORY + ANALYSIS 3.1 Narrative + Inventory 12-20 3.2 Analysis 21-23 3.3 Phasing Plan 24 4. DESIGN EXPLORATION 4.1 Program: Goals + Objectives 26 4.2 Conceptual Development 27-28 5. MASTER PLAN & SCHEMATIC DESIGN 5.1 Master Plan 29 5.2 Site Sections 31-32 5.3 Blow-up Plans + Renderings 33-42 6. FINAL THOUGHTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“When people connect with nature, it happens somewhere… My own point of intimate contact with the land was a ditch… Without a doubt, most of the elements of my life flowed from that canal.” -Robert Michael Pyle (The Thunder Tree: Lessons from an urban wildland, pg. 2) “...this reach would have been the recreational “heart” of the river with 38 mi of gravel-cobble-boulder substrate characterized by sizable riffles and rapids and interspersed with deep pools. This reach would have provided outstanding canoeing and kayaking, excellent fishing for smallmouth bass and walleye (and potamodromous fishes returning to spawn), and beautiful scenery. -E. M. Hay-Chmielewski, et al. (Huron River Assessment, pg. 41)

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview

Located at the northern edge of the City of Ypsilanti, Michigan, this 1.25-mile stream restoration project abutting 6.5 acres of parkland; commonly known as Peninsular Park, is surrounded by neighborhoods, borders Eastern Michigan University and exhibits a unique piece of local history. Originating in 1867, the name â&#x20AC;&#x153;Peninsularâ&#x20AC;? embodies the former ownership of the site, the Peninsular Paper Company, that operated one of many mills within the Huron River watershed. In operation until 1986, the company contributed to the regional economy and financially sustained many individuals for a century as a regional paper supplier. As operation seized, the property was sold to the City of Ypsilanti for a negligible amount as token of gratitude. The original layout of the property consisted of the factory (on the southern bank of the Huron River), the in-channel dam (impounding the Huron River), and the mill power house (on the northern bank of the Huron River). This northern bank area is about 6.5-acres and was established as Peninsular Park in 1992. Eventually, the former factory was demolished in 2004 and was replaced with medium-density apartment complexes. What remained until this project began was an outdated landscape consisting of only park area and remaining dam structures, symbolizing the past of the community and the industry that once took place here (Rudisill). While impoundments such as the Peninsular Paper Dam contributed much to the local economy during their prime, the trade-off was a significant alteration of the regional hydrology within watershed. Dams can vary in their environmental impact, however, these structures generally transform river ecosystems and contribute to a multitude of complex ecological problems, including: changes in water temperature, restriction of nutrient and genetic migration, and altered sediment flows (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 39-41). The factors degrade the health and vitally of the ecological systems within these environments and often limit the diversity of aquatic

species that historically existed in these streams. Given these reasons and the past non-operational status of the structure, the Peninsular Dam was designated as a priority for removal by the Michigan State Fisheries Division, prior to removal (Riggs,14). In initially approaching how to best assess the removal process and given my limited expertise, this project was posed as a vision for the removal and restoration/design of the stream and park area. In order to support literature, interviews with experts were made concerning the overall process of this project, including Dr. Bangshuai Han (Water Resources Engineer and Assistant Professor at Ball State University) and Elizabeth Riggs (Deputy Director at Huron River Watershed Council). Phil Tevis (Founder/Principle of FlatLand Resources; natural channel design consultant). The guidance from these experts made this project feasible, taking just an idea to remove a dam, and turning it into a green-way system. It can seen that this project presented an interesting design opportunity that spanned many disciplines and took many forms. The research focused on the notions of improving the quality and ecological health of a space, primarily for the benefit of the surrounding communities. The ability to be in proximity to a natural environment is generally thought to have to the ability to make people happier and healthier by improving psychological well-being and permitting opportunities for passive and active recreation, with larger environments, such as reserves, being the most influential on our health and well-being (e.g. De Vries, Sjerp, et al., 2003; Wolch, Byrne & Newell, 2014). Furthermore, within the past decade, it has been further indicated that not only is contact with nature important but connecting with ecologically diverse habitats with a variety of species also poses important health benefits to users (Sandifer et al., 2015; Fuller et al., 2007). This research provides additionally reasoning for the removal of this impoundment and provides itself as an opportunity for a newly restored urban/ecological environment.

Figure 1: Context

Figure 2: Peninsular Paper Co. + Site (Blue) (Photo Credit: Ypsilanti Historical Society)

7.8 Acres 6.4 Acres 18 Acres

5 Acres 10.2 Acres 5.4 Acres 1.1 Miles

Eastern Michigan University

Figure 3: Site Context

1.2 Problem Statement

Across the United States, cities and towns are reassessing their relationship with local ecology. As industries that were once highly dependent on such ecosystems have gone away or shifted to different modes of production, opportunities to repair and restore local ecology are becoming more available. On the same token, as the industrial boom in the United States has weaned, much of the infrastructure that supported it is getting to or has past it’s use expectancy. This is becoming a discussion point for communities as they are now faced with the cost of maintaining and repairing these extensive systems without the same financial base. This is the case for many major roads, bridges, and dams. Specifically concerning dams, some dams are considered to be “high-hazard” or “critical” for protecting communities in the floodplain from catastrophic flooding. Other dams such as the Peninsular Paper Dam are considered to be “in-channel” or “low-head” and do not serve the same purpose of protecting human life and private property. Today, it is often the case that many in-channel dams have been abandoned from their original use and owner, and thus become relics in the landscape. That being said, the price-tag that comes with repairing dams is often beyond what a small community can afford. Furthermore, it is becoming the case that the cost to remove a dam is less than repairing and continued maintenance. One article states that by 2020 more than 85% of the registered dams in the U.S. will be past their operational lives and as these dams across the United States continue to decline, removal options will become more prevalent (FEMA). Definitions Paper Mill- a factory that manufactures paper (Oxford Dictionaries) Stream Restoration- the re-establishment of a streams structure and functional behaviors prior to distrubance (NC SRI) Ecosystem Health- integrative concept that includes social, biological and health science in determining how to preserve

the functions of ecosystems (Kiel University) Small Park- park that is around 6-7 acres or less, often having ecological and sometimes social limitations (Forsyth et al., 3-4) Watershed- outlet to which an area of land all drains into; ie. land draining into a river (USGS) Impoundment- body of water confined by an obstruction or enclosure such as a dam (Dictionary.com) High-hazard dam- classification indicating a high degree of adverse consequences as a result of misoperation or failure (FEMA) In-channel Dam- (sometimes called “Run of River“ or “Lowhead”) dam system that spans the entire width of a river or stream with no or little water storage. Sometimes seen as a public safety hazard due to recirculating currents and large hydaulic forces (Tschantz) Health Design- Evidence based design relating to the creation of health improve or illness preventing spaces (Health Care Design Magazine) Active Recreation- activities engaged for relaxation, health and wellbeing or enjoyment requiring physical exertion at the detriment to an area; such as sports (Government of Western Australia) Passive Recreation- activities engaged in for relaxation, health and wellbeing or enjoyment that are non-consumptive; such as wildlife viewing or walking (Legal Inc.) Psycho-physiological Stress- when psychological stress conditions exacerbate physical symptons (Study.com) Attention Restoration- Theory that asserts that people concentrate better after spending time in natural places or settings (Krisch) Biodiversity- sometimes considered to be species richness or relating to habitat diversity, relates to varieties of life present in a certain area

Delimitations -The engineering aspects of the dam removal were not addressed in detail as this area of assessment required advanced engineering and structural education. -The hydrological engineering aspects of removing the dam were not addressed in detail as this required advanced education. -The existing mill powerhouse is likely in need of rehabilitation. Advanced architectural knowledge in building structures is not an expertise that was obtained through this study. -The material removed from the dam structure itself (ie. concrete, steel, etc.) was reclaimed and associated with the final design proposal. Estimations of this material in this report were based on available information at the time. Assumptions -Assumptions were made about the removal process of the dam. For example, it can be the case during dam removal for sediment to have been built-up behind the structure, causing a short-term downstream disturbance. In the case for this project, sediment was assumed to be not problematic. -Funding was assumed to be by an internal or external entity. -Adjacent land, including the 6.5-acres of parkland, north-east empty lots and river-banks exposed as a result of the removal, was assumed to be available. -Assumptions were made that surrounding homeowners accepted the project either initially due to value of proximity to greenspace or through negotiation. -The exposed land area after dam removal was assumed to be a mud flat until vegetation establishes. -Building the pedestrian bridge across the rail line was assumed to be feasible. -Federal, state and local permitting and assesment studies for this project were assumed to have been obtained/performed prior to design or during the design process.

2. METHODS + FINDINGS Significance The emerging option for communities to remove noncritical dams is a potential win/win situation for people and ecology as it permits new recreation opportunities, evidencebased health design programming, and the ability to see ecosystems be restored to native conditions. Overtime, these actions could potentially reverse local extinction of certain species in this area, while permitting opportunities for increased public interaction with nature contributing to a renewed sense of social well-being. This project also served as linkage to a series of connections to various aspects of the site and site surroundings. The project connects to two existing regional trail systems; the project connects the surrounding neighborhoods to the river ecosystem; and the project connects visitors to the history of the site with the reuse of materials from the past park structures.

A growing area of interest in landscape architecture is the practice of incorporating academic and professional research into the foundation of design projects. One particular focus is the field of health design. Academic research is beginning to pinpoint how built landscapes and natural environments affect users and how these environments can be used for positive interactions that benefit people both psychologically and physiologically in both active and passive ways (Fedrizzi, 15-16). That being mentioned, this section summarizes the primary findings from the review of literature that supported the focus of this project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the Integration of Healthy People and Healthy Ecosystems. This is followed by an overview concerning information gathered through interviews in which individuals have provided supportive expertise for this project, as well data gathered from a questionnaire. Together the findings from this process set the precedent for the baseline for this project. Much of this information was filtered into the goals and objectives, and/or final design.

2.1 Primary Findings

Throughout the research effort of this project, many resources were reviewed to learn more about how improving ecological health can be used for the benefit of surrounding communities. Using the sub-questions below the following research was review and summarized. Sub-questions:

a) How can improving local ecosystem health be integrated with the improvement of human health in a design?

b) How can the design of a small urban waterfront park be focused to promote human health and well-being and what design principles are necessary to achieve this?

c) How can community feedback be used to permit greater user engagement within this site and thus promote ideas about needed social benefits?

Figure 4: Project Trajectory

Integrating Human Health and Ecosystem Health The main focus of this sub-question was to indicate how this project could better arrive at the conclusion that there is some relationship between the health of people and the health of local ecosystems. One of the primary ideas supporting this claim is the importance of biodiversity. Pertaining to human health, biodiversity is a major support system in many ways. Its range of pathways include: direct benefits such as improving psychological and physiological well-being, as well as indirect benefits such as having a space to exercise, the regulation disease transmission through natural processes, providing nutrition and medicine, and cleaning local watersheds and airsheds (Romanelli, C., et al.29-30). Specific to this project, one area of particular interest is the relationship between contact with nature and the associated mental and physical health benefits. This notion has received much academic focus, however, one area of study that is beginning to emerge with more research questions what the level of biodiversity that is needed for these benefits occur. Based on research, the idea that greenspace can contribute to overall health of surrounding communities has been established in many ways. In one study, researchers sought to find out: 1) if proximity to greenspace caused people to spend more time outdoors, and 2) whether exposure to the natural environment generated positive effects on mood and the ability to concentrate. Results indicate that the proximity to nature with opportunities to use these spaces actively and passively are important aspects of the quality of people’s living environment (De Vries, Sjerp, et al., 1720-1722). Additionally, greener environments generally correlated with fewer symptoms and a generally indicate better health. It was noted that having “…10% more greenspace in the living environment leads to a decrease in the number of symptoms that is comparable with a decrease in age by 5 years (De Vries, Sjerp, et al., 1726).” Moreover, it was found that even if people do not actively participate in recreation, being within a greener

environment may be healthy due to simply being exposed to natural elements (De Vries, Sjerp, et al., 1717-1718). In a similar study, the ability for psycho-physiological stress recovery and attention restoration was compared between urban and natural environments. The study had participants perform attention demanding tasks and then either sit in a viewless room, walk in an urban environment, or walk in a nature reserve as a means to study the ability of these environments to benefit individuals’ health after the session. Positive results were associated after walking in the nature reserve, while the urban stroll and viewless room presented the opposite pattern (Hartig, et al., 109). This is elaborated: “…our results speak to widely held beliefs that natural surroundings aid the physical and psychological restoration of people living in cities (Hartig, et al., 119).” These results show how surroundings have an effect on different forms of restoration that relate to health. For urban populations, easy pedestrian and visual access to natural surroundings can provide benefits. Furthermore, “Public health strategies with a natural environment component may have particular value in this time of growing urban populations, exploding healthcare expenditures, and deteriorating environmental quality (Hartig, et al., 122).” Given these points, evidence surrounding the need for greenspace in urban environments is evident. To take the findings of the aforementioned research further, recent research has demonstrated that the amount of biodiversity present in a greenspace affect humans during contact with nature. In a review of research, it was stated that quality and depth of greenspaces, relating to species richness and heterogeneity, have demonstrated positive contributions for factors relating to psychological well-being (Sandifer et al., 6-7). In one study, researchers were able to positively associate metrics of biodiversity with increased well-being. This experiment indicated that after being in natural situations, participants indicated increased well-being in situations that included more ecological diversity. In this study, researchers

found that both plant richness and bird richness affected participants positively. This suggests that an emphasis on increasing biodiversity through ecotones or habitat patches could benefit users of a park area (Fuller et al., 392-393). While more research is needed to support a direct connection, it is plausible to suggest that in addition to a focus on greenspace, an additional focus in design projects should be placed on increasing species richness and habitat diversity, as it pertains to additional benefits that humans can draw from biodiversity and the dimension of ecosystem services that supports well-being. To put it in another way, by increasing species richness and habitat diversity, one is essentially contributing positively to the overall health of an ecosystem. Ecosystem health can be defined as the occurrence of normal ecosystem processes and functions, including notions that it is free from distress, while maintaining its autonomy and resiliency to stress (Tzoulas, et al., 168). As the health benefits that urban communities obtain from biodiversity correlates with diverse habitats and more species; i.e. ecological health, it can be assumed that healthier ecosystems have a better capacity to provide a range of services. Therefore, “ecological functions and ecosystem services derived from a Green Infrastructure contribute to ecosystem health and to public health, respectively (Tzoulas, et al., 170).” Promoting Human Health in a Small Urban Waterfront Park Small parks are typically not considered to be as grand as their larger counterparts. Generally, under 7-acres, their limited scale often cannot provide the same level of ecological and social functions as other multi-hundred acre open-space park systems. While size is a limiting factor to some degree, small parks do provide important functions for urban communities. One issue in particular is the notion of accessibility to the mental and physical health benefits that small parks provide (Forsyth et al., 5-17). The idea that small parks are often the only “natural

reality” for many urban populations has become a topic of conversation. Over the past ten years, awareness of the uneven distribution of urban parks has become recognized as a social justice issue that has been historically intertwined with oppressive planning policies. Even today, it is often the case that “people of color and low-income earners typically occupy the urban core and/or the low-income inner ring suburbs where greenspace is either scarce or poorly maintained (Wolch et al., 235).” Given this inequity, to say that small parks are important to urban populations is an understatement. “Small scale natural parks may not only provide the direct benefits of physical activity and connection to the natural world for low-income inner city residents who cannot easily visit distant wilderness sites, but they may also help improve neighborhood livability (Baur & Tynon, 8-9).” It becomes clear that living in proximity to parks and trails is one of the biggest indicators to park use and the associated benefits. One study found that people living within a quarter mile of a park were the most frequent users, while those more than a mile away from the park made up 13% of the park’s usage (Cohen et al., 511513). As physical accessibility presents one problem, another underlying issue of accessibility is the quality of the park space that can limit usage. Parks that are safe, clean, well-lit, and with facilities such as restrooms have been found to be the most used (Kaczynski & Henderson 342-344). Moreover, trail use is shown to correlate with condition, as well as views of urban and ecological scenery (Reynolds, et al., 342). This points to the notion that park and trail use increases with perceptions of safety and positive aesthetics and further reiterates the point that people need access to nature, because without it, issues of environmental injustice arise. In order to better understand how built designs can provide users with the health benefits commonly associated with natural spaces, several resources were reviewed. While there are many types and sizes of environments that can provide health benefits, as mentioned, many of these

environments are unattractive for use or inaccessible for many users most of the time. This begs the question how one designs a space as to permit accessibility, as well as restorative experiences and opportunities for physical activity. In addressing ways to create restorative environments in small urban settings, compared to larger reserves, these environments are in a sense – “micro-restorative” as they do not provide the ultimate natural experience, but instead providing an equally important experience in terms of everyday use and availability. The concept of the restorative experience is based on the idea that everyday demands fatigue one’s mental ability. That being said, the restorative environment is an environment that fosters the recovery of the individual, providing relief from day-to-day demands (Kaplan & Kaplan 238-243). In order to establish a restorative environment many aspects are necessary. Conceptually the idea of a restorative place can be understood through lens of four factors. These factors are: Being away, Fascination, Extent, and Compatibility. In the context of small park, Being away means to achieve the feeling that a remote wilderness would provide. Fascination follows the idea that something can capture one’s attention without draining their ability to focus. Extent implies an experience have a sufficient scope so that users can explore, while have connectedness so that users can understand the context; “an environment where there is much to discover and learn, but which at the same time is well-organized and legible, is high in extent (Kaplan & Kaplan, 242).” Likewise, Compatibility implies that there needs to be some similarly in circumstances; i.e. environmental patterns, actions required by the environment, and purposes of the users. Additionally, compatibility “is not a function of the environment alone, or of the individual alone, but of the relationship between them (Kaplan & Kaplan 242).” In a similar way, other considerations for creating restorative experiences are what Kaplan et al. state as the five patterns of restorative environments. These patterns are

described as: Quiet fascination, Wandering in small places, Separation from distraction, and Wood, stone, and old. Quiet fascination is the idea that many natural environments can evoke a sense of appeal and it can be the result of many activities. For instance, activities such as gardening can provide this. Similarly, quiet fascination can also come from the setting itself, just as birds chirping or water flowing. The authors suggest providing a way to stop and notice these actions as a means to foster this pattern. Wandering in small places is described as being a space that feels like a completely different world. This environment permits users to focus on things that don’t require additional effort, allowing the mind to wander easily. The authors state that such mind wandering is more likely when a place provides the sense of extent. Design examples of this are those that create the sense of larger environments, such as separating larger spaces, creating winding paths, paying attention to the details. This could be generated as a series of compelling features, a trail system, and good tree canopy. Separation from distraction is the feeling of extent providing the sense of wholeness and is free of interruptions. This is one of the features that makes small spaces so enjoyable. One way to achieve this is through the use of enclosures (Kaplan et al., 67-72). Effective enclosures are those that permit a user to keep track of where they are, while providing a sense of separation (Kaplan et al., 119). Wood, stone, and old addresses the need for use of materials that fit in with the environment and do not distract the users (Kaplan et al., 73-74). One study investigated the natural components in small parks that contribute to psychological restoration, citing that less attention has been given to the components of the physical environment in these spaces. The research indicated several things that could potentially be used for design scenarios. According the responses, many trees and bushes were preferred, as well as grass cover, flowerbeds, water components, and few other people. The findings of this research support that green component should be used to aid

in creating restorative environments (Nordh et al., 100-102). In another study, one group of scholars looked at a park redesign in Denmark called Dantes Plads, before after design. The research found that prior to the design: 1) there was no variation in terrain, 2) the primary gathering space was a paved area with the lawn functioning as secondary area, 3) the area was defined by the buildings, 4) there was nowhere to sit and 5) there was no distinct lighting. After the design: 1) parking spaces were integrated with the park, 2) the building edges were used to enhance the user’s experience, 3) paths and flower beds were added and 4) berms were created to diversify the terrain. The results before and after the redesign indicate that the new design is perceived more positively than the old design. Due to limited recreation use many users did not recognize the space as a small park. The addition of greenery and the terrain to the site have been thought to cause fascination within the site as stimuli. This has been noted as having a restorative potential. Both sun and shade were enjoyed with the redesign, and the noise level was noted to be calming or interesting (Peschardt et al. 2014, 160-162). In additional research, the same team examined 683 responses from nine parks and found that people who go to these parks to socialize typically spend between 30120 minutes, and that people who go to the park for rest & restitution stay in the area for 15-30 minutes. Furthermore, the researchers point out that many of the users in this study visited parks ‘going home’ or coming ‘from home’, they suggest that this might indicate the need for natural meeting points to further permit social interaction and to provide areas for R&R if possible (Peschardt et al. 2012, 240-242). This indicates that people who go to small urban parks do so in order to achieve some sort of health benefit.

Community Feedback, User Engagement and Social Benefits Urban neighborhoods, regardless of ethnicity or socioeconomic status, benefit from the presence of small parks. In order to made these parks fully accessible and thus used by community members, addressing how small park spaces help facilitate social connections, while reshaping aspects of communities is important. This can relate to having spaces that are perceived positively in terms of representing the local community, as well as providing the sense of being be safe, clean, and well maintained. Community engagement is an effective way to create spaces that are long-lasting and vital to the users. Despite this, the needs of local communities are often not a focus or design influence for many project and decisions that affect their surroundings. Concerning urban areas and the greenspace accessibility problems that are often already present, addressing the expectations of the community should be a positive part of any planning process (Dannenberg et al., 288289). The knowledge that can be obtained through these users is one that contributes to creating healthy and sustainable communities. Some of the benefits that can be derived through process include: building a sense of participation, collecting community-based knowledge to support primary research, tailoring solutions to local communities, establishing stakeholders, forming social connections that improve the future of built projects, decreasing conflicts/derailment early on, and creating context-sensitive solutions (Dannenberg et al., 296). That being the case, park planning is a complex process. Considering that one of the major focuses of this project is to provoke active and passive experiences partly through recreation and use, establishing the types of activities that are to be programmed into this site needs to be contextsensitive, as to establish a baseline of workable solutions and local values that community members can agree on. Some of the benefits that gain public feedback provides relate to

establishing sensible maintenance abilities, as to prevent communities with limited maintenance budgets from trying to manage additional work that is beyond financial capabilities. This is especially important as the perception and upkeep of a part can relate to whether or not users feel comfortable enough to use the space and as to prevent crime/ delinquent behavior (Forsyth et al.,172). Gaining insight from local communities can also contribute to potential education opportunities, such as creating interpretative programs that work with local schools and colleges. This can also work with Friends of Parks programs that later take on the role as stewards of the park system and monitoring of conditions (Forsyth et al.,172-173). In the case for this project, while restoration plays a role in mitigating localized extinction of species and the improvement of ecological health, it plays a role in shaping people’s experience of nature to one that is biodiverse and integrated with urban space in an accessible way. This would allow for immersion into a natural space within ones community that holds social value, ideally helping to ensure that future generations interact and understand why they should advocate for the health of their urban natural environments (Standish, et al., 3-11).

2.2 Interview Summaries Dr. Bangshuai Han, Assistant Professor Ball State University This was a 1-hour interview that took place on September 15, 2016. To recap this discussion, several important issues were discussed concerning this project. In general information was provided that pertained to the Huron River and Huron River Watershed. Several important things were mentioned that will come into further examination during the design phase of this project. 1) It was mentioned that one method for performing river restorations in accordance to Dave Rosgenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Natural Channel Design techniques. In order to use these guidelines, rivers must not be those that exhibit frequent flooding events; 2) the process of removal changes the flow of water upstream and downstream, which specifically could change the amount of water the adjacent reservoirs receive. For this reason, looking at the regional hydrology is important; 3) with the process of removal, rechannelization, and the introduction of riparian revegetation, the amount of water downstream will decrease due to infiltration; 5) removal of dams and river restoration projects can create benefits within the human dimensions, namely relating to water quality improvement, aesthetics, and the creation of a new social amenity.

Elizabeth Riggs, Deputy Director-Huron Watershed Council This was a 20-minute phone interview that took place on September 26, 2016. To summarize what was discussed, the conversation topic for this interview was specific to the Peninsular Dam and surrounding area. In particular, it was mentioned that the Peninsular Dam has been identified by state organizations in Michigan as a candidate for removal. Some of the major issues surrounding this removal are 1) removing a dam and restoring the function of a river in a responsible manner is quite expensive; 2) there has been discussion that some of the sediment behind the dam could potentially be hazardous as much of this area was industrial in the past; 3) support for the dam removal and local park has been steadily increasing, with the addition of a dock for portaging watercraft, as well as the creation of the Huron River Water Trail; 4) it was mentioned that if the dam were to be removed discussion with Eastern Michigan University relating to research and educational opportunities is likely to occur; and 5) the Huron River has not been dammed for flood control, most of the obstruction is in the form of low-head dams contributing to hydropower. This interview was followed up by a second informal interview during the organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Fall River Day on October 9, 2016 in Ypsilanti, Michigan. During this time, I sat in on conversation with public attendees of this event as Riggs answered questions and led the group on a historical tour, discussing the history and future visions of the river.

Watershed Recreation Questionnaire The purpose of this anonymous questionnaire is to gain a better perspective about people’s interests in watershed park recreation. Information gathered will be used to inform a student project that is looking at how rivers can provide healthy outdoor opportunities for local residents. Thank you for your time!

2.3 Questionnaire As a means to further understand how the people within this area enjoy their current park system, a questionnaire was administered throughout the various parks along the Huron River on Sunday, October 9, 2016. This date was chosen as it was also the Fall River Day in Ypsilanti, Michigan and community members were posed to already be engaged with ideas and thoughts about their local river system. The questionnaire (shown right) was administered to 27 individuals during this session and the results indicate several interesting perspectives about this community and their use of the Huron River.

1a) How many times have you visited a park along the Huron River in the last year? (circle answer) only once

two to three times

four to ten times

more than ten times

1b) If more than ten times, how frequent do you use the parkspace? (circle answer) once a month

three to five times/month

one to three times/week

four to seven times/week

2) During these visits how many people are with you? (circle answer) only myself

one additional

two to three additional

more than four additonal

3) How do you enjoy the parks along the Huron River? (check those that apply) Canoeing/Kayaking/Paddling Hiking or Walking Wildlife Viewing Aesthetic Enjoyment Rest and Relaxation Socialization Playing Games Picnicking Fishing Swimming Other (please write): 4) How high would you rank the importance of having a healthy river? (circle answer) very

somewhat

neutral

somewhat not important

not important at all

don’t know

5) How important is the health of the river for the activities that you enjoy? (circle answer) very

somewhat

neutral

somewhat not important

not important at all

don’t know

6) How high would you rank the importance of having access to parkspace? (circle answer) very

somewhat

neutral

somewhat not important

not important at all

don’t know

7) What park along the Huron River do you frequent most and why? (write answer below)

8) Please rank the following in order of importance? (4=most important & 1=least) Learning about nature, history, and culture in an outdoor setting Being with friends and family in an outdoor setting Being in solitude in an outdoor setting A wide range of outdoor recreation opportunities 9) Please leave any additional comments (write answer below)

Figure 5: Questionnaire Administered

How many times have you visited a park along the Huron River in last year?

More than ten Four to ten Two to three Only once

If more than ten times, how frequent do you use the park space?

Four to seven per month Three to five times per month One to three times per month Once a month

During these visits how many people are with you?

Four or more additional Two to three additional One additional Only myself

27 responses 37% chose “More than ten” 30% chose “Four to ten” 18.5% chose “Two to three” 14.5 % chose “Only once”

10 follow-up responses 40% chose “three to five times per month” 30% chose “one to three times per week” 20% chose “once a month” 10% chose “four to seven times per week”

27 responses 44% chose “Two to three additional” 33% chose “One additional” 14.8% chose “Only myself” 8.2% chose “Four or more additional”

Figure 6: Visitation

Figure 7: Visitation Frequency

Figure 8: Size of Groups During Visitation

How high would you rank the importance of having a healthy Huron River?

Very important Somewhat important Neutral

27 responses 88% chose “Very Important”

Figure 9: River Health

How important is the health of the Huron River for the activities you enjoy?

Very important Somewhat important Neutral

27 responses 70% chose “Very Important”

Figure 10: River Health + Activities

How high would you rank the importance of having access to park space?

Very important Somewhat important Neutral

27 responses 81% chose “Very Important”

Figure 11: Park Access

Ranking the Following in order of importance

How do you enjoy your time spent in parks along the Huron River?

Learning about nature, culture & history in an outdoor setting

Most important Being with friends & family in an outdoor setting

Being in solitude in an outdoor setting Least important

A wide range of outdoor activities

Figure 12: Preferred Activities Data

Figure 13: Preferred Programming + Space Usage

3. SITE INVENTORY + ANALYSIS 3.1 Narrative + Inventory

This section began the process of applying the knowledge outlined in the previous section by addressing how this research and data could be integrated within the context of a particular site. The first part of the section elaborates on the decision-making process that was used for the selection of the site and what details were included in this process. The second area of this section explores the context of the site and the surroundings that contribute to its uniqueness. Using the lens of the research gained through the process of this report, the next part of this section begins the inventory and then analysis of the site and its surroundings features to identity how this area can provide itself as an essential outdoor resource for users to engage with their local ecosystem in healthy ways. Site Selection Located in South-east Michigan, Ypsilanti is a city that is well-positioned to take advantage of its local river ecosystem. Situated along the Huron River, this area has historically been affiliated with its local riverine ecosystem both for its beauty, as well as means for economy viability and growth. Much of the economic interests in this area were due to the riverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to provide the energy needed for cheap mill production and in fact there are at least 100 dams for a variety of purposes still within the Huron River Watershed (Huron Watershed Council). While, the Huron River has provided itself as a resource for economic viability, production in this area has been on a steady decline in the past 50 years. This positions communities and local city leaders with the decision on how to use the river now that industries no longer have a financial interests in locations, while at the same time in waterbased recreation and water-front property space continues to become the important part of the conversation. With that in mind, the site that this study looked at is along a particular reach of the Huron River, formerly the location of the Peninsular Paper Company. The Peninsular Paper Company acquired the rights to establish a dam on the

Huron River in this location in the early 20th century as means generate power for a large paper mill facility that processed large quantities of Michigan timber and supplied local newspaper outlets. As mentioned briefly in the introduction of this project, this company has since seized production with most of the mill operation being demolished. What remains is a small parcel of park, known as Peninsular Park, which the historic mill power-house is located and the in-channel dam that powered this whole facility. This site was chosen for a variety of reasons. For one, it fits the criteria of a small park area that is within a semidensely populated area and is somewhat accessible to those wishing to engage in the space. Due to the dam, the park area is also in position to be part of a restoration that could potentially act as a catalyst for both the increase in human and non-human activities within the site, if the dam were to be removed and the park redesigned to accommodate both natural area and open-space with access to the river and educational opportunities.

growth due to itself abundance of hydro-power. This rail line ran through much of the southern half of Michigan and mainly provided passenger transportation between the Michigan Central Station in Detroit and Union Station in Chicago. Today, Depot Town is the second largest historic district in Michigan (Rudisill). While much has changed economically in the area surrounding the site, the areas surrounding the Huron River are experiencing much support. This community is one that appreciates their park system and is beginning to revision the ways that they can once again form a relationship with their local river. One important note about the park culture in Ypsilanti is that in the early 20th century the Olmsted Bros developed a master plan for this park system.

Site Description + Context Located within the Huron River Watershed, this site in particular drains into the Ford Lake-Huron River subwatershed. This sub-watershed drains approximately 19.6 square-miles of land area, contributing to the 900+ squaremiles of the Huron River Watershed. The Huron River, which creates the southern border of the site runs total distance of 125 miles, draining the watershed and eventually terminating at Lake Erie. As mentioned, the site is the former location of a paper mill operation and some of the surrounding landscape still exhibits some of this industrial notion. Ypsilanti itself was a large industrial town at one point and just downstream from the site is the historical downtown of Ypsilanti, known as Depot Town due to the large rail system it housed. This rail line is part of the Michigan Central Railroad and when established Ypsilanti was seen as an area with great potential for future Figure 14: Sub-watershed Context

Historical Conditions The area surrounding the site was once an ecologically rich area, which eventually helped supply much of the growing industries in and surrounding Ypsilanti. The first land survey in this area was performed in the early 19th century and displays this richness (see Figure 20). The site itself was a majority of Oak-Hickory species. Looking at this early ecological assessment is an interesting view into the vegetation that this river system supported. The historical meander of the river should also be noted, as well as the mixture of downstream wetlands and the conditions that was would have been required for such vegetation to thrive and flourish. Toward the latter half of the 19th century, much of the vegetation present prior would have slowly changed as the area began to industrialize and became a city in 1858. The Peninsular Paper Mill was established in 1867, changing the flow of the Huron to more of its present form (Rudisill). The Peninsular Paper Mill was in production until 1986, during this time the site functioned as part of this operation and an important economic support for the city. While the establishment of the mill resulted in the channelization and damming of the river, the factory also was responsible for a portion of water pollution in the Huron River due to the dumping of bleaches and dyes. As mentioned the primary location for this operation was across the Huron River from the site of Peninsular Park. During this time, the site itself was the location of the mill power house still standing today.

Figure 16: Sanborn (Photo via Library of Congress) + Historical Imagery (Photos via Rudisill)

Figure 15: Historical Vegetation

Existing Conditions: Regional Trail Networks Within and around the site are two major recreation networks. As a result of an ongoing collaboration between communities in Washtenaw County and local organizations, both the Border-to-border Trail (B2B) and the Huron River Water Trail represent renewed public interest in their local Huron River. The Border-to-border trail offers over 24 miles of paved shared-use paths with around 70 miles total currently in planning. This trail is part of an ongoing effort with a local grass-roots organization and the Washtenaw County Park system (Border-to-Border Trail). The Huron River Water Trail in an inland paddling trail that spans over one hundred miles. This trail is an effort to permit greater use and appreciation of the Huron River, as well as connect communities to the historical significance of the river and how it helped to build the local communities within its watershed (Huron River National Water Trail).

Site Boundary B2B Trail Water Trail Dam Locations City Boundary Huron River

Figure 17: Regional Trail Networks

Existing Conditions: Population Density Overall, the population of within the City of Ypsilanti is around 20,000 people. In relation to land-use patterns, the population surrounding the site is densest in the areas that are urban and residential. Likewise, to the north of the site, populations densities are lowest as this area is mostly used for crop and pasture. The site is approximately 0.5-mile from Eastern Michigan University (south) and 1-mile from the historic Depot Town in Ypsilanti, both of which are fairly populated areas and nearby the site. Existing Conditions: Median Age In assessing how to better understand the population within the context of the site, Figure 18 looks at the median ages within the sub-watershed. Immediately surrounding the site, the median age is between 20 and 30 years old. This is understandable considering the presence of Eastern Michigan University just south of the site. These areas are also the densest in terms of population and likely major stakeholders in the use of this site. To the immediate north of the site, the median age is considerably older. This area is also the least population, with the primary uses being agriculturally related.

Figure 18: Population Density

Figure 20: Percentage of Females

Existing Conditions: Sex Further analysis of the demographics in this area relate to percentages of the female/male population make-up. Figure 24 displays percentages of the population that are female and Figure 25 displays percentages of the population that are male. Overall, the percentages are close in numbers but they do vary by location. The census tract that the site is within is higher in female population members at approximately 57%. The rural area north of the site is even in terms of its distribution at around 49-50%. South of the site, the census tracts are both 50/50, with the south-east tract being slightly higher in male population members.

Figure 19: Median Age

Figure 21: Percentage of Males

Figure 22: Race Distribution

Figure 29: Percent White Figure 28: Percent Two or More Figure 27: Percent Other Race

PERCENTAGES 56.6% White 33.6% Black 5% Asian 4.3% Other 0.5% Two Or More Races 0% Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander

Figure 23: Percent Asian

Figure 24: Percent Black

residents south of the river.

Figure 26: Percent Native Am.

Figure 25: Percent Pacific Islander

Existing Conditions: Racial Composition Race historically has a lot to do with access to parks and quality of life in general. For this assessment the racial breakdown of the population of the sub-watershed was mapped and calculated by percentages. Overall, the data indicates that most people within the sub-watershed classify themselves as White (approximately 70%). Those identifying as Asian make up the second highest percentage of this area at around 14%, with Black being the third highest percentage at approximately 3.7%. The area immediately surrounding the site, is 51.9-76.3% Black in one census tract with areas outside of that being a majority White, with some Asian

Existing Conditions: Poverty In order to gain a better understanding of the quality of life that the residents within context of site have, income amounts were assessed and mapped. Based on the data, it can be seen that incomes in this area vary. Immediately surrounding the site, incomes are some of the lowest within the sub-watershed. The census tract that the site is within is one of two areas that has the lowest income. This income is $9,000-12,250 per year, which is well below the poverty line. Just south of the site, incomes are also below the poverty line and are between $12,250- 22,500 per year.

Natural Features: Regional Land Cover The current regional land-use surrounding the site is a mixture of agriculture, forest cover and urban area. Based on land cover data, it is seen that this area has changed significantly from its historical conditions. To the north of the site, the dominant land-use is row-crops and pasture. Similarly, to the south and south-east of the site, most of the land-use is residential, commercial/ industrial/ transportation, and urban/ recreational lawn. Additionally, the creation of Ford Lake inundated much of the downstream portion of the Huron River, making up around 1.5 square-miles of the sub-watershed area.

PERCENTAGES 21% Row Crops 18% Deciduous Forest 17% Low-density Residential 11% Open Water 9% Pasture 9% Commercial/Industrial 9% Medium-high Density Residential 4% Urban Recreational 1.7% Wooded Wetland .3% Evergreen Forest

Medium-high Density Residential Low Density Residential

Figure 30: Income

Figure 31: Sub-watershed Land-cover Percentages

Figure 32: Land-cover Distribution

Natural features: Topography The topography of site is typically of a riverbank, being steep along the river. Some areas of the site are steep than others, having slopes in upwards of 30% as shown in the slope raster image below. The elevation model (below) details a 3D representation of the contours within this site. From this image, surface morphology can be identified in better detail in areas outside and within the river areas.

Figure 34: Topography (1 ft contours)

Figure 33: Surface Morphology

Figure 35: Slope Calculation

Natural features: Soil In looking at the soil conditions for this site, it should be understood that prior to dam removal most of the site was under water and therefore soil data was unavailable. The only area with soil information that was available prior to dam removal was the former area of Peninsular Park. This area consisted only of two soil types: Fill (no data available) and the other being Sloan Silt Loam (poorly drained). The other areas of the site and its surroundings are a good mixture of drainage patterns, with the areas on the north being mostly well and moderately drained. The areas on the south displayed characteristics of being poorly drained. What should be understood is that the river is the primary area that water is flowing and therefore where-ever feasible and within site boundaries there is vegetation planted and other methods utilized to slow drainage and prevent run-off.

Poorly Drained Somewhat-poorly Drained Moderate Drainage Well Drained No Data Water

Figure 37: Soil Drainage

Figure 36: Stream Order from DEM

Natural features: Hydrology The Huron River runs through the site and plays a significant role in this design. In attempting to better understand the hydrological conditions in this area, upstream USGS water gage information is being examined. Figure 38 displays annual information from one upstream gage. As one can see there is a variation of discharge throughout the year with a peak during high precipitation months (shown image left). Volunteer programs with the Huron Watershed Council have been monitoring this river with datasets that run back at least 20 years. One collection point is just outside of the historic downtown of Ypsilanti, around a downstream mile from the site has indicated an increase in water quality from poor to fair over around 20 years. This is determined by a collection of insect species that act as indicators for water quality parameters. This area has been historically directly affected by water quality problems from the peninsular dam and paper mill operation (Huron River at Cross Street).

Figure 38: Water Gage Heights

Figure 39: Site Photos

3.2 Analysis As a result of the site inventory, many new perspectives were gained about the site. Overall the site has many unique qualities that would permit the design to develop in several different ways. For this project in particular the focus for the analysis was geared towards assessing options for improving ecological conditions, while creating new opportunities and enhancing existing opportunities focusing on human health. Stream Analysis In order to better understand how this project would evolve and how design would be able to take place, Phil Tevis, a stream professional, was consulted for his expertise concerning natural channel design. Based on information provided by Tevis, the likely natural channel after stream restoration was able to be predicted. The stream channel renderings (see right figures) represent the estimated land change and channel width. This information helped further guide the design process for this project allow for more realistic detail design for this project.

Figure 40: Stream Prior to Dam Removal

Figure 41: Stream After Dam Removal

Greenway Area Analysis As a result of the methodology and inventory, piecing together the analysis for this site was not entirely difficult. As the site spans a large area, this analysis is two parts. The first of this series is an analysis of the area encompassing the full greenway as well as its connections to existing bike lanes, non-motorized trail, and water trail. This plan describes the overall implementation process for this project, detailing the park redesign and the phased greenway development.

Figure 42: Greenway Analysis

Peninsular Park Site Analysis Part two of the analysis for this project details the opportunities and constraints that primarily concerned the former layout and surroundings of Peninsular Park. Key takeaways for this analysis area reflect soil and topography information, ideal entry points from outside of the site, proposed habitat areas, and views.

Figure 43: Park Redesign Analysis

3.3 Phasing Plan This project incorporated a phasing plan as means to do several things. The primary reasoning for phasing the design construction is due the notion that upon dam removal environment fluctuations concerning soil and hydrology were likely to occur. The phasing breaks the construction of this project into two separate events. The first phase built upon the existing park space as well as developed some signage to reorient pedestrians along the existing and new trail areas. During this phase the local university and k-12 school system is likely to participate in the ongoing restoration effort of the revived riparian area. The second phase of construction finalizes the design for this linear greenway system. During this point, sediment and hydrological processes will have been allowed to settle to the point of being able to implement the remaining boardwalk and interactive interpretative areas. This will be the final connection for this stretch of greenway, allowing for just 2 miles of active recreation in the form of both watercraft and walking/biking.

Figure 44: Phase 1 Diagram

Figure 45: Phase 2 Diagram

4. DESIGN EXPLORATION This section describes the process of exploring design decisions that took place to determine the best design for the park space at the project site. Within the conceptual design section there are three concepts with focuses on different areas of the goals and objectives. While several design alternatives were explored, three in particular made it into this report. Each of these conceptual alternatives were an essential part of the design process and contributed to final design concept. The final concept brings these the two previous concepts together and details how both human health and ecological health can work in a design. This concept contributes directly to the thinking and design of the master plan and final site renderings.

Figure 46: Research Process

4.1 Program: Goals + Objectives

Goal #1 - Provide opportunities for healthy and active lifestyles Objective: Provide a walking trail throughout the site with relaxation points Objective: Provide a separate walking areas to permit a slowpaced experience of the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s natural features Objective: Provide amenities supporting water-based recreation

Goal #2 - Facilitate nature connections throughout the site Objective: Expose users to ecological diversity through the creation of ecotones or different habitat areas.

Goal #3 - Restore, create new, and support existing ecological processes within the site

Goal #4 - Connect to existing local/regional networks and context

Objective: Designate areas for natural habitat

Objective: Reuse on-site materials from dam in a celebratory manner

Objective: Re-vegetate riparian zone after dam removal to act as a buffer Objective: Utilize boardwalks to protect integrity of riparian and on-site vegetation in natural areas

Objective: Promote and accommodate use of existing Huron River Water Trail

Objective: Provide effective solution for on-site stormwater

Objective: Connect to existing Border to Border Trail with the use of signage and by providing the greenway as an alternative route

Objective: Assess and reduce likelihood of on-site erosion with vegetation or grading

Objective: Utilize the mill power house for interpretive programming Objective: Connect surrounding neighborhoods to river ecosystem

Objective: Develop natural areas to encourage wildlife near accessible areas Objective: Create a system of interpretative signage throughout the park Objective: Provide access points to the river Objective: Create seating and viewing areas near select points of interest throughout the site Objective: Create an area for nature-themed play

4.2 Conceptual Development

Concept Name: River Promenade

Figure 47: River Promenade Concept Woodland Lawn Stone Garden/ Plantings Riparian/ Successional Area Mill Powerhouse Path or Area of Interest

The River Promenade concept was the earliest investigation into accessing how the park might look after redesign. This concept used a layered approach with different programming areas, including a large lawn area and looked developing a large rock area that met a large area of riparian stream bank.

Concept Name: Recognizing the Historical Bank

Figure 48: Historical Bank Concept Woodland Stone Garden/ Plantings Riparian/ Successional Area Mill Powerhouse Path or Area of Interest Historic Stream Bank

The Recognizing the Historical Bank concept was a later exploration of the site and its forms. This concept was envisioned to use the former stream bank as the organizing agent for the design. Paying respect to the history of the site, this concept would have also utilized reclaimed concrete material from the dam to provide a series stone experiences leading visitors along this historical landmark. Programming areas were the stone garden/woodland area and a series of experiences through the riparian zone.

Concept Name: Rapids and Riffles

Figure 49: Riffle/Pool Concept Woodland Play Area Stone Garden/ Plantings Wetland Area Riparian/ Successional Area Path or Area of Interest Mill Powerhouse Historic Stream Bank

The Rapids and Riffles concept was a response to the beauty that the stream bank once offered, having been described as the recreational heart of the watershed due to the rapids, riffles, and pools caused by the natural stone substrate. This concept uses the form of a generalized riffle/pool sequence as the organizing agent and incorporates active recreation through the center of the concept with passive experience recreation in the areas deemed to be pools (see wetland area and play area).

Final Concept: Designing the Ecotone Drawing heavily from the research summarized in the methodology section of this project, Designing the Ecotone uses the spatial forms developed through prior conceptual iterations, while pinpointing ideal location for visitors to interact with biodiversity. To restate the idea of ecotone, these spaces are thresholds between habitats and due to this, have high numbers of species. By programming the site features and designing with the theory of ecotones in mind, this permits a greater chance of allowing for interactions/observations of variety of plant and animal species for visitors to experience. This is important as it explores spatial how emerging scientific theory relates to notion of wellness while at the same time increase the biodiversity of the site allow for people to experience at various points. Using the notion of designing within thresholds of different habitats, the major design features for this concept were to create four distinct habitat spaces within the existing natural elements of the site. In the existing woodland area, an restored native hardwood woodland was planted at the northern edge of the site. With the recession of water levels from the removal of the dam the topography change was evidence and ideal for a riparian area that would offer both habitat and act as a stream buffer during storm events. Utilizing cut/fill, wetland habitat was also created to create additional biodiversity. As evident in the master plan, the area around the historic mill powerhouse structure was redesigned as a social space, some reclaimed concrete was repurposed in a garden area. Natureplay elements were designed and utilized in a play area within the wood zone, and various vantage points were created through the site to allow for observation and orientation to other spaces. Wayfinding was created for this design using purple toned pavers to provide excitement and lead people through the spaces.

Woodland Wetland Area Riparian/ Successional Area River Wayfinding Pavers Path or Area of Interest Mill Powerhouse Stone Garden/ Plantings Play Area Viewing Area Figure 50: Designing the Ecotone Concept

The diagram to the right details the various ecotones throughout the site and shows how with the various amenities designed for the park that visitors will be able to be park of these thresholds. The amount of ecotone spaces allows visitors to have multiple opportunities for interacting with different habitat spaces and permits space for increased biodiversity.

Figure 51: Ecotones + Programming Area (Blue Circle)

5. MASTER PLAN & SCHEMATIC DESIGN 5.1 Master Plan

Figure 52: Peninsular Park Master Plan

Goal #1 - Provide opportunities for healthy and active lifestyles

Goal #2 - Facilitate nature connections throughout the site

Goal #3 - Restore, create new, and support existing ecological processes within the site

Goal #4 - Connect to existing local/regional networks and context

Figure 55: Mapping the Goals

5.2 Site Sections

Road

Vegetation

Rail

Figure 53: Section A-A1

Riparian Buffer

Stream

Riparian Buffer

Path

Shrubs

“Heron’s Nest”

Path

Woodland

Road

Apartments

Road

Lawn

Stream

Riparian Area

Greenway Center

Path

Pergola

Lawn

Woodland

Parking

Figure 54: Section B-B1

5.3 Blow-up Plans + Renderings Park Entrance + Bird’s Eye Observation Area This site plan represents the vision for the Peninsular Park Entrance and “Bird’s Eye Observation Area”. This area, being the main entrance off of the parking and pedestrian pathways into site, was designed to be formal and to orient visitors to place. Key features here are a main gateway, plantings, a sitting area, and observation deck for visitors to get a whole view of the mill powerhouse area of the site. This was envisioned to permit users to enter into the space in a celebratory manner and to encourage further exploration into the park.

15’

Figure 56: Peninsular Park Entrance + Bird’s Eye Observation Area

Figure 57: Peninsular Park Entrance Gateway

Ypsilanti Greenway Center Through this design the former mill powerhouse structure was reprogrammed to serve the community as a greenway center allowing users to gear up with information and to create a space that is socialization and relaxation. Key features that were designed for this space are various points for gaining access to habitat areas, a pergola with seating, an area to lock-up oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bicycle and various plantings to allow for interaction and beautification.

20â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Figure 58: Ypsilanti Greenway Center + Viewing Areas

Figure 59: Ypsilanti Greenway Center

Stonefly Garden Area The â&#x20AC;&#x153;Stonefly Gardenâ&#x20AC;? is another point of orientation into other places of the site. This area was designed to allow users to have a space to either pass through or sit and relax next to the water feature. This area is within a ecotone and therefore is space for ample wildlife interaction as well tree canopy cover. The water feature reflects the history of the site with its reuse of concrete from the dam for pavers and the center piece symbolizes the three sides of the history of this space. One side is the history before the dam, another the history during the dam, and the third representing the history after the dam. The name stonefly was inspired the water quality measures that took place prior to the removal of the dam, as the larvae of the stonefly is one determinant of water quality.

15â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Figure 60: Stonefly Garden

Figure 61: Stonefly Garden Area

Spotted Turtle Wetland Area The â&#x20AC;&#x153;Spotted Turtle Wetland Areaâ&#x20AC;? was designed as man-made wetland to encourage increase biodiversity and wetland species. It is named after an endangered turtle in the region and is another space that leads users through different ecotones. This space is essential a boardwalk surrounding the wetland with two major gathering areas. Key benefits here are intended to allow users to explore a new environment outside with opportunities to become fascinated by the diverse amounts of plant and animal species.

Figure 62: Spotted Turtle Wetland Area

Wildflower Play Area Permitting children to have opportunities to learn through play is a major topic of importance for landscape architecture. Engaging in play is allows children to become oriented with themselves and others, while encouraging them to embrace new challenges as they develop. Nature influenced play can increase opportunities for children to express themselves in physical, social, imaginative, and cognitive ways. The Wildflower Play area was a response to the power of play environments. This design provided children with opportunities to interact with sculptural elements representing tall grass, climb, balance and play on logs, use a slide, and challenge themselves on the climbing net structure. Other features of this design are custom benches for visitors to sit and watch the action.

Figure 63: Wildflower Play Area

Darterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Launch This area was named after a small fish species found in the Huron River. It is the place for visitors to get into the river for various activities and to also see wildlife. The stepped boat ramp allow for visitors to enter or exit the river for paddling as it is near the parking lot, and serves as a connections to the Huron River Water Trail.

Figure 64: Darterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Launch

Tall-grass Pergola The Tall-grass Pergola is the west entrance into Peninsular Park. This area was designed to be a place for observing the river and as it is facing west it is a prime place to watch the sunset over the river. Being an entrance into the park, it is also the place for pedestrians to gather and rest, or meet and gear up for a venture through the park or greenway proper.

Figure 65: Tall-grass Pergola

6. Final Thoughts This project sought to explore the relationship between human health and ecological health. As medium of exploration, Peninsular Park and its surrounding conditions proved to be a great example of how these two bodies of work (human health and ecological health) could be put into practice and allow this project to speak to a larger tone of the importance of this relationship as whole. This importance is multi-layered and spans many disciplines but it follows a trend of academic work speaking to these ideas, as well as many communities re-evaluating the importance of getting outside and promoting local ecological systems. The removal of the former mill dam and the redesign of Peninsular Park completely transformed this environment from an under-used park to an a location that provides accessible wellness benefits, connections to larger regional greenway and blueway systems, and is activated with opportunities to experience and learn about habitat and wildlife. Through the development of the master plan and the various conceptual iterations covered in this booklet, it can be seen that many angles were covered in the decision-making process while determining the best approach for this project. Ultimately, the final concept was derived directly from literature following a discussion about the concept not representing the purpose of this project. This was a significant moment in the design phase and helped to distinguish this project from being another riverfront design, to one that is leaning towards being evidence-based with a clear process. This is further evident in the goals and objectives section of this project and was the basis for the perspectives and sections that were created reflecting the program and the concept. While this project is at its final form, it is in no way complete. With more time or with better initial planning, Phase 2 of this design would have been designed in full. Likewise, this project only serves as a vision for what the landscape might

look like. It certainly does not get into the details of the design and construction documents. This would be another area of development given several more months. Looking at the methodology, the questionnaire is one area that would make for an interesting reassessment. In an ideal scenario, such a questionnaire should been performed numerous times with more of a statistical mindset in terms of bias and looking at trends. The first questionnaire issued, while it provided really interesting information and great thoughts about the park system, at best only infers to the changing of the ecological landscape and dam removal. It also does not represent the immediate communities surrounding the site. This is important because when designing for health, the community you are designing for is your best asset for information and reflections of a place. In many ways, designing for people in the sense of them being your clientele is one of the biggest factors for contributing to whether or not a place provides wellness to users or not. That being said, this work covered many facets of landscape architecture and layered two large practice areas into one project focus. Healthy People // Healthy Ecosystems: a small park’s role in riparian appreciation uses a challenging methodology to show a linkage between people and their environments and it speaks to a larger audience about the importance of healthy outdoor spaces for both humans and non-humans. It also speaks to the profession of landscape architecture as a practice using the lens of stewardship and advocacy in an attempt to provide a place for local residents to enjoy, appreciate, and cultivate for many years to come.

“It is, by common consent, a good thing for people to get back to nature.” — Aldo Leopold (A Sand County Almanac, pg. 165)

BIBLIOGRAPHY “2015 ASLA PROFESSIONAL AWARDS.” American Society of Landscape Architects. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. A Summary of Existing Research on Low-head Dam Removal Projects. Lexington, MA: ICF Consulting, 2005. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2005. Web. “Avalon Park History.” Avalon Park Preserve. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. “Avalon Park and Preserve.” Landscape Performance Series. N.p., 21 Dec. 2015. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. “Avalon Park & Reserve » Andropogon Associates, Ltd.” Avalon Park & Reserve » Andropogon Associates, Ltd. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. <Figure 5> Baur, Joshua W. R., and Joanne Tynon F. "Small-Scale Urban Nature Parks: Why Should We Care?" Leisure Sciences 32.2 (2010): 195-200. Web. Bedimo-Rung, Ariane L., Andrew J. Mowen, and Deborah A. Cohen. "The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model." American journal of preventive medicine 28.2 (2005): 159-168. “Blue Hole Regional Park.” Center for Active Design. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. “Blue Hole Regional Park.” Landscape Performance Series. N.p., 11 Aug. 2015. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. <Figure 6 & 8> “Blue Hole Regional Park.” Sustainable Sites Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. “Blue Hole Regional Park Wayfinding and Interpretive Sign Program.”Design Workshop. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. <Figure 7> Bowman, Margaret. Exploring dam removal: A decision-making guide. American Rivers, 2002. “Border-to-Border Trail (B2B).” Border-to-Border Trail (B2B) —. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2017. Campbell, Alison, et al. "The linkages between biodiversity and climate change adaptation." UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (2009). Chiesura, Anna. "The role of urban parks for the sustainable city." Landscape and urban planning 68.1 (2004): 129 138. Cohen, Deborah A., et al. "Contribution of public parks to physical activity."American Journal of Public Health 97.3 (2007): 509-514. Dannenberg, Andrew L., Howard Frumkin, and Richard Jackson. Making Healthy Places: Designing and Building for Health, Well-being, and Sustainability. Washington, D.C.: Island, 2011. Print. “Defining Evidence-based Design.” Defining Evidence-based Design. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2016. “Definition of Sport and Active Recreation.” Definition of Sport and Active Recreation. Government of Western Australia, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2016. “Design Workshop - Landscape Architecture, Urban Design, Land Planning, Tourism Planning.” Design Workshop - Landscape Architecture, Urban Design, Land Planning, “Green Revival Brings Life Back River Park.” Landscape Architecture Network. N.p., n.d. Web. De Vries, Sjerp, et al. "Natural environments—healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health." Environment and planning A 35.10 (2003): 1717-1731. “Ecosystem Health.” Ecosystem Health. Kiel University, n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2004. Web Fedrizzi, Beatriz. "What are the Big Questions for Landscape Architecture Now?." Landscape Review 14.1 (2011). FEMA. National dam safety program. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. (1999). FEMA. Summary of Existing Guidelines for Hydrologic Safety of Dams. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. (2012). Forman, Richard T. T. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Washington, DC: Island, 2003. Print. Forsyth, Ann, Laura Musacchio, and Frank Fitzgerald. Designing Small Parks: A Manual Addressing Social and Ecological Concerns. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley, 2005. Print. Fuller, Richard A., et al. "Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity." Biology letters 3.4 (2007): 390-394. Hartig, Terry, et al. "Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings." Journal of environmental psychology 23.2 (2003): 109-123. Havinga, Donna. "Beyond Repair." Alternatives Journal 25.2 (1999): n. pag. Web. "Huron River Watershed Council." Huron River Watershed Council RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2016. W

"Huron River Watershed Council Hopes 100-mile Water Trail Will Boost River Tourism." AnnArbor.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 May 2016. Huron River National Water Trail. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2017. Kaczynski, Andrew T., and Karla A. Henderson. "Environmental correlates of physical activity: a review of evidence about parks and recreation." Leisure Sciences 29.4 (2007): 315-354.Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan Restorative Experience: The healing power of nearby nature. In M. Francis and R. T. Hester, Jr. (Ed.) The Meaning of Gardens. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 238-243. Kaplan, Rachel, Stephen Kaplan, and Robert Ryan L. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature. Washington, D.C.: Island, 1998. Print. Krisch, Kirra. “Attention Restoration Theory & Nature: Let’s Solve Problems.” Attention Restoration Theory & Nature: Let’s Solve Problems... Positive Psychology Program, 09 Apr. 2016. Web. 12 Dec. 2016. Hay-Chmielewski, E.M., et al. "Huron River Assessment." (1995). “Low Head Dams.” Bruce A. Tschantz, P.E. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2016. Leopold, Aldo, and Charles Walsh. Schwartz. “Chapter 19: Conservation Esthetic.” A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. Topeka, KS: Topeka Bindery, 2000. 165. Print. Maas, Jolanda, et al. "Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation?." Journal of epidemiology and community health 60.7 (2006): 587-592. “Mill River Master Plan.” Mill River Park Collaborative. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. Musacchio, Laura R. "Cultivating deep care: integrating landscape ecological research into the cultural dimension of ecosystem services." Landscape ecology 28.6 (2013): 1025-1038. Musacchio, Laura R. "The ecology and culture of landscape sustainability: emerging knowledge and innovation in landscape research and practice." Landscape Ecology 24.8 (2009): 989-992. Naveh, Zev. "Ecological and Cultural Landscape Restoration and the Cultural Evolution towards a Post-industrial Symbiosis between Human Society and Nature." Restoration Ecology 6.2 (1998): 135-143. Nordh, Helena, Chaham Alalouch, and Terry Hartig. "Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology." Urban forestry & urban greening 10.2 (2011): 95-103. “OLIN: Blog.” OLIN: Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2016. <Figure 9> “Paper Mill.” Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford Living Dictionaries, n.d. Web. “Peninsular Paper Company - 1867.” Ypsilanti Historical Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2017. Perlman, USGS Howard. “What Is a Watershed?” Watersheds and Drainage Basins, USGS Water Science School. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016 Peschardt, Karin Kragsig, and Ulrika Karlsson Stigsdotter. "Evidence for Designing Health Promoting Pocket Parks." International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR 8.3 (2014): 149-164. Peschardt, Karin K., Jasper Schipperijn, and Ulrika K. Stigsdotter. "Use of small public urban green spaces (SPUGS)." Urban forestry & urban greening 11.3 (2012): 235-244. Peschardt, Karin K., Ulrika K. Stigsdotter, and Jasper Schipperrijn. "Identifying features of pocket parks that may be related to health promoting use." Landscape Research 41.1 (2014): 79-94.

Reynolds, Kim D., et al. "Trail characteristics as correlates of urban trail use." American Journal of Health Promotion 21.4s (2007): 335-345. Romanelli, C., et al. "Connecting global priorities: biodiversity and human health: a state of knowledge review." World Health Organistion/Secretariat of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 2015. Rudisill, Alvin. "Peninsular Dam & Power Plant." Ypsilanti Gleanings, 01 Sept. 2009. Web. 09 Apr. 2016. “Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Ypsilanti, Washtenaw County, Michigan.” The Library of Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2017. Sandifer, Paul A., Ariana E. Sutton-Grier, and Bethney P. Ward. "Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation." Ecosystem Services 12 (2015): 1-15. Santucci, V.J. Jr, Gephard, S.R. & Pescitelli, S.M. (2005) Effects of multiple low-head dams on fish, macroinvertebrates, habitat, and water quality in the Fox River, Illinois. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 25, 975–992. Saunders, Carol D., Amara T. Brook, and Olin Eugene Myers. "Using psychology to save biodiversity and human well-being." Conservation Biology 20.3 (2006): 702-705. Shwartz, Assaf, et al. "Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: An experiment." Biological Conservation 171 (2014): 82-90. Standish, Rachel J., Richard J. Hobbs, and James R. Miller. "Improving city life: options for ecological restoration in urban landscapes and how these might influence interactions between people and nature." Landscape ecology 28.6 (2013): 1213-1221. “Stream Restoration.” NC SRI Stream Restoration Guidebook. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. 3-4 Syed, Atiq U., J. P. Bennett, and Cynthia M. Rachol. A Pre-dam-removal Assessment of Sediment Transport for Four Dams on the Kalamazoo River between Plainwell and Allegan, Michigan. Reston, VA: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 2005. Print. “The Definition of Impoundment.” Dictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2016 Tress, Bärbel, et al. "Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research." Landscape and Urban Planning 57.3 (2001): 137-141. Tschantz, Bruce A., and Kenneth R. Wright. "Hidden dangers and public safety at low-head dams." Journal of Dam Safety, Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) 9.1 (2011): 8-17. Tuckerman, Steve, and Bill Zawiski. "Case studies of dam removal and TMDLs: Process and results." Journal of Great Lakes Research 33.sp2 (2007): 103-116. Tzoulas, Konstantinos, et al. "Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review." Landscape and urban planning 81.3 (2007): 167-178. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. National inventory of dams. US Army, Washington, D.C. 2008. Wolch, Jennifer R., Jason Byrne, and Joshua P. Newell. "Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’." Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014): 234-244. Wu, Jianguo. "Landscape of culture and culture of landscape: does landscape ecology need culture?." Landscape ecology 25.8 (2010): 1147-1150.

Pizzuto, Jim. "Effects of Dam Removal on River Form and Process Although many well-established concepts of fluvial geomorphology are relevant for evaluating the effects of dam removal, geomorphologists remain unable to forecast stream channel changes caused by the removal of specific dams." BioScience 52.8 (2002): 683 691. Plieninger, Tobias, et al. "Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level." Land use policy 33 (2013): 118-129. Poff, N. Leroy, and Hart, D. David. "How Dams Vary and Why It Matters for the Emerging Science of Dam Removal An ecological classification of dams is needed to characterize how the tremendous variation in the size, operational mode, age, and number of dams in a river basin influences the potential for restoring regulated rivers via dam removal." BioScience 52.8 (2002): 659-668. Psychophysiological Disorders: Definition, Types, Causes and Treatment.” Study.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2016. Pyle, Robert Michael. "Eden in a vacant lot: Special places, species, and kids in the neighborhood of life." Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (2002): 305-327. Pyle, Robert Michael. The thunder tree: Lessons from an urban wildland. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993. Riggs, Elizabeth. "Re* Envisioning Dam Management in Michigan." (2011).