Artifacts

Caitlin Curtis

Environment and Society

Professor Phoenix

February 1 2019

My Ecological Footprint

My ecological footprint results were 105% or 10.8 tonnes, .3 above meeting the UKs set target of 10.5 for 2020. I then viewed the breakdown of my footprint, with home coming in at 57%, stuff at 17%, food at 22%, and travel at 4%. What my ecological footprint means is, overall, I am using 105% of the Earth’s resources that are available, and the breakdowns are showing the percentages from my whole that make up those sections. I’ve taken ecological footprint calculators in the past, either for environmental science classes, or for my own interest and each time I’m surprised by how high my number is, even though I strive to live a sustainable and efficient life. However, when you think about it, each year we continue to lose more and more valuable resources, that aren’t coming back. Living in a materialistic society, doesn’t help with the amount or resources we consume each day either. Each year, new reports come out about how much oil is left in the world, or how much freshwater is left, yet repeatedly we choose to instead look at where we haven’t drilled for oil or looked for water.

Yearly, we see these statistics, and read about the warnings from environmental scientists, but most people don’t pay attention or listen, they don’t want to. They’d rather live in a bubble where everything is fine, where they believe the amount of resources, they use one day will replenish the next, but that isn’t the case. We need to face the fact that we can’t continue living the way that we are, as a society we need to start investing in our future, yes, we are implementing sustainable practices, such as energy efficient lighting, beginning to create walkable communities, trying to make public transportation a more viable option, however, most of this progress has been slow and we need it to go faster.

Based on my own previous learning and the tips provided in the breakdown of my ecological footprint, I would say that the best options to install sustainability into our lives for years to come are more education, more widespread public transportation, and the greening of already standing buildings. What I mean by more education is, providing public service announcements and free seminars people can attend to learn about the benefits of living sustainably, and the steps to do so. In my experience through school, most kids don’t even realize that by turning off the lights or eating food that is sourced locally can actually help the environment. Providing this basic information more widely and easily would help in getting the information out there to a broader audience. Also, by being harsh and showing how much of different resources are left in the world, may open people’s eyes to the fact that, once it’s used it’s gone, may cause them to think more carefully about how much waste they produce.

Widespread public transportation is a trickier situation. In the United States we have allied ourselves with the automobile, making it the desirable mode of public transportation. We aren’t really equipped to have mass public transportation, especially since we have almost completely gotten rid of our railways, at least the passenger carrying ones. Even the public buses, although great if you live downtown and don’t own a car, are difficult for those who do not live downtown. This is based on the fact that if you live outside of town, you have to drive to a car park, park, then get on the bus, and then come back to get your car to then drive home. Or in my case, where I live, I have no access to a public bus, I must drive my car to get anywhere. So, accessibility to public transportation would have to increase in order for widespread use to really take off.

My last point about greening already standing buildings is simple. As a society we tend to want to tear down the old and build new, but that is a lot of money spent and resources wasted that could be used elsewhere. Instead we should be working on improving and greening the already standing buildings that we have. For instance, taking out non-energy efficient lighting, and revamping with energy efficient lighting, adding a green roof to buildings downtown where it is mainly concrete, and add solar panels to buildings in areas that get a lot of sun to allow them to be more sustainable, but also use less electricity. There’s a lot more options to green buildings, and I feel engaging in the practice more would decrease the amount of resources and money used to tear down and build new.

These aren’t new ideas, on the contrary, they are ideas that have been circulating for years, what we need to do now is actually continually implement them. We need to start enforcing change so that in the years to come we don’t regret not doing it sooner or wishing we had done more.

GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT IN THE FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST

Caitlin A. Curtis

Department of Public Environmental Affairs

Natural Resources Policy, Law, and Administration 379

April 30, 2020

ABSTRACT

Concerns over the Flathead National Management Plan of 2018 by conservation groups have raised concerns over the management of the grizzly bears within the park that are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These conservation groups are concerned about the revised management plan that they believe violates the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by abandoning long-standing protections for key grizzly bear habitat within the forest.

My research findings indicate that the Forest Service has provided extensive management provisions for the grizzly bears; however, the Forest Service has also been moving toward more disturbance-producing activities. Within the 2018 Management Plan, many sections and provisions discuss the effects of road building and mineral extraction and how those activities would impact the grizzly bears. This indicates that the Forest Service is considering increasing development within the forest. As the conservation groups contend, within a past Forest Management Plan, the Forest Service established the Amendment 19, which limited the amount of new roads built through the National Forest.

By researching the grizzly bears in the scope of whether or not the Flathead National Forest, via the Forest Service, is violating the Endangered Species Act and NEPA, results are showing that as the years have gone by, restrictions and protections that were put in place to help protect the grizzly bears have begun to decrease. It is these outside changes that are impacting the wildlife areas that are having an effect, more so than any specific changes to grizzly bear conservation acts themselves. These outside interferences may not look like they impact, but their ramifications may be more profound than originally thought when actually put into practice.

The population of grizzly bears within the Flathead National Forest are beginning to rise and are on the verge of no longer being considered an endangered species. However, my research shows that currently, the Forest Service is beginning to make decisions that could harm and even cause a decline in the grizzly bear population, and if they are taken off the endangered list, they could end up right where they were when they were originally added to the list.

GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT IN THE FL:ATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST

In 1975, grizzly bears were listed as a threatened species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,[i] and under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, federal agencies are directed to use their authorities to seek to conserve endangered and threatened species. For grizzly bears in the Flathead National Forest, this specifically means that the habitat conditions and management within the forest have increased the population size and improved the status of the bears.[ii] However, as of April 15, 2019, two Montana conservation groups filed a complaint against the 2018 Flathead National Forest Plan on the grounds that the revised management plan violated the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by abandoning long-standing protections for the key grizzly bear habitat within the forest.[iii] The groups specifically cited the Flathead National Forest Plan of 1995, in which Amendment 19 was created that limited the number of roads the Forest Service could maintain in the Park and that the Forest Service was required to reclaim old roads in compensation for new roads built in the known grizzly bear habitat.[iv] The 2018 plan would, however, according to the conservation groups, weaken these measures. To determine whether or not the 2018 plan does indeed weaken the measures put in place in previous Forest Plans, this paper will look at the revised 2018 Management Plan, the threats that the grizzly bears are facing as a result, and the conservational steps taken to ensure the future of the grizzly bears within the Flathead National Forest.

In 2004, the grizzly bear population within the Flathead National Forest was approximately 765, which was double the target of 391 that had been set by previous Recovery Plans. As well, the Flathead National Forest and the adjacent Forests of Helena, Kootenai, Lewis and Clark, and Lolo that make up the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), created a recovery zone that encompasses approximately 5.7 million acres.[v] Within the recovery plan created for the grizzly bears within the forest, it outlined actions needed for the conservation and recovery of grizzly bears in the contiguous United States, provided guidance and recommendations applicable to the areas, called for dividing each recovery zone into bear management units, so that the maintence of each unit could be better administered, and relied on the bear management units to track population status, assess habitat conditions, and ensure that the bears and their habitats would not be disturbed.[vi] The plan also included a public involvement initiative, in which seven open houses would be provided to educate the public about the grizzly bears and answer questions and accept comments about the Environmental Impact Statement.

The ongoing conservation actions for the grizzly bears within the forest involve food storage, bear-resistant containers and facilities, and information and education. The food storage involves making sure the food is being stored properly by campers and those who work within the park to ensure the bears do not become food conditioned. Bear-resistant containers and facilities also involve food storage methods but also ensure that the garbage containers and meat-hanging poles are also bear-resisitant. As well, the NCDE has provided bear-resistant facilities at campgrounds, trailheads, dispersed campsites, and other areas, with the Forest Service fencing/closing off garbage dumps. Within the information and education section, the Forest Service has provided informational pamphlets, presentations, and seminars to inform the public in order to reduce bear-people conflicts.[vii] All of these measures work in achieving and promoting the Grizzly Bear Management Plan created for the Flathead National Forest. Another provision that was put into place to protect and conserve the grizzly bears were special requirements and permits. These include contracts and special use permits in NCDE in which provisions requiring protection of grizzly bears and its habitat are required, as well as timber sale prescriptions and contracts incorporating provisions to protect the habitat.[viii]

Some of the issues that were not addressed in the analysis for grizzly bear management and conservation was the potential delisting of the species within the NCDE. To delist the grizzly bears from their threatened status, their population must be healthy and they must have a habitat that can continue to support them. However, in order to delist the species, the Forest Service plans must be revised and amended to ensure that future management of the grizzly bears would continue to support this recovery status. This proposition to delist the grizzly bears is one of the reasons the environmental conservation groups have shown concern over the management of the grizzly bear populations within the Flathead National Forest, but the Land Management Plan of 2018 also raises concerns in this regard.

The Land Management Plan of 2018 for the Flathead National Forest is broken up into different zones due to the fact that the grizzly bear habitat spans across more than one park. Within these zones, the plan outlines what may and may not be done within the parks or within/near grizzly bear habitat. These include ground-disturbing activities; seismic activity; cumulative impacts of multiple, concurrent seismic and/or drilling operations; the reasonable and appropriate measures regarding the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, or mitigation of functioning riparian management zones; and the reclamation and revegetation of motorized routes, drilling pads, and other areas disturbed by mining activities.[ix] That’s not to say these activities don’t take place within the Flathead National Forest, however, because they do. The ground-disturbing activities found within the grizzly bear spring habitat have a restriction to be avoided between April 1 and June 30; however, if the timing restrictions are not practicable, other measures will be used to mitigate negative impacts to the grizzly bears,[x] but the actions may still take place. The seismic activity is also advised to be avoided during the denning seasons. However, if that’s not practical, the negative effects would be mitigated. The same goes for the cumulative impacts of multiple, concurrent seismic/drilling operations. These stated provisions within the Land Management Plan of 2018 are part of the reason the environmental conservation groups have now filed against the plan. Not only does the plan allow for these wildlife disturbances, but it will also allow new road building as well.

While the environmental conservation groups do have a standing under Amendment 19 that was established by the Flathead National Forest Plan of 1995, in which it limited the number of roads the Forest Service could maintain within the forest,[xi] the environmental conservation groups ignore the conservation provisions put into effect by the 2018 plan. Within the 2018 plan, public motorized use that is not associated with mineral activities would be prohibited on motorized routes constructed for exploration and development, traffic management would be developed when determining which routes are most used, helicopter use would only be associated with seismic activity and development and would require a permit, and speed limits would be adopted to prevent and reduce collisions with grizzly bears.[xii] Within the plan, the NCDE has also put restrictions on the amount of noise pollution allowed within the park, investing in noise-reduction technology on development equipment and motorized vehicles to reduce potential disturbance or displacement of the grizzly bears within the park, as well as maintaining wildlife cover along regularly used motorized routes, seismic corridors, and pipelines to protect the habitat connectivity for the grizzly bears.[xiii]

Despite the concerns presented by the environmental conservation groups, the delisting of the grizzly bear within the Flathead National Forest went ahead. The forest supervisor, Chip Weber, said that the latest science shows that grizzly bear populations are more affected by roads that are heavily used instead of closed-off, unused roads within the forest.[xiv] Although this case is still ongoing, in accordance with NEPA and the ESA, the Forest Service of the Flathead National Forest has done their due diligence. The Forest Service provided opportune time after releasing their proposed Environmental Impact Statement to receive public comment, and they did. As a result, before publishing their final Forest Plan, the Forest Service for the Flathead National Forest updated and modified the Grizzly Bear Management Plan to ensure the continued protection and conservation of the species. As well, under the Endangered Species Act, once a species has reached its projected population and sustains that population size for a certain number of years, the species may be delisted. Although there are concerns due to the events occurring within the forest, due to the planned mitigation measures and conservation measures within the plan, the courts would likely side with the Forest Service.

The reason why the courts would likely side with the Forest Service if this case is taken to court is because the Forest Service has done their job. They created an EIS showing the environmental effects the proposed actions will have on the environment and species within the forest and provided seven open houses to inform the public, answer questions, and receive comments on the EIS,[xv] as well as, developing three alternatives to their plan. The first alternative was a no-action alternative, in which, no forest plan amendments or revision would occur and existing forest plan direction would continue to be implemented. The second alternative presented a modified approach, which would incorporate plan components for grizzly bear habitat management that was informed by the draft NCDE grizzly bear conservation strategy, other available scientific information, and public comments on the draft EIS. The third and final approach was to develop in response to issues identified during public scoping and comments on the draft EIS.[xvi] Due to the updated and revised Grizzly Bear Management Plan, it is likely the Forest Service took parts of the second and third alternatives in constructing their plan. In the final plans, the Forest Service has taken pieces from the original plan, other available scientific information, and they took concerns received during public comment periods and they then developed a new plan and a response to all of the information and concerns given to them during the comment period. Under the Forest Service obligations set by Congress, the Forest Service has met these obligations.

The Forest Service, although under fire from a group of environmental conservation groups, shouldn’t hear any negatives from Congress or other agencies. The Forest Service, an agency under the U.S. Department of Agriculture[xvii] has done its job by ensuring the forest is available and preserved for the public’s enjoyment while also conserving not only the plant life but the animals within the forest as well. The Forest Service has not failed in its core mission or responsibility because it did the research for the EIS, it allowed numerous opportunities for public comment, and then took everything presented to update the Grizzly Bear Management Plan to ensure that all required provisions and conservation efforts were included. As well, a development draft for the NCDE was created to be within the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan in the event of being delisted so that a conservation strategy would be in place that would continually and consistently provide management techniques for the grizzly bears.[xviii]

The only recommendations that can be made to the Forest Service is ensuring that they continue to monitor the grizzly bear population within the Flathead National Forest, even after the grizzly bear is put up for and is delisted. It’s important to continue monitoring them because once a species has been threatened or endangered, even after they get their population numbers back up, they are still susceptible to becoming threatened or endangered again. As well, the Forest Service will have to continue to enact the conservation measures they have outlined within their plan. Not only will this show environmental conservation groups that they are indeed doing everything within their power to maintain the grizzly bear populations, but it will also aid in promoting the delisting of the grizzly bears. Delisting has been shown to be both helpful and unhelpful for previously threatened or endangered species; however, if the Forest Service continues to use and implement conservation practices even after the species is delisted, as is outlined in the proposed plan, then the species should thrive.

The most difficult thing the Forest Service is going to have to monitor to ensure the conservation of the grizzly bears within the Flathead National Forest is the disturbance activities of drilling and traffic management. To ensure the drilling activities don’t negatively impact and disturb the grizzly bears, the Forest Service needs to keep an up-to-date knowledge of where the grizzly bears are within the park and their den locations so that no project takes place in those areas. These projects also require permits to take place. Therefore, the Forest Service should check up on the projects throughout their duration to ensure that the project is keeping within their parameters and not venturing into grizzly bear territory.

To manage traffic and motorized vehicles, the Forest Service needs to keep an up-to-date knowledge of which roads in the forest are heavily used by motorists and which roads are heavily crossed by grizzly bears in their movements and migration through the park. This is essential to prevent human-bear conflicts. The Forest Service should also have signs up on the roads that the grizzly bears have been seen to use or cross so that motorists know in the event another route could be used to avoid a potential conflict. This information should also be printed in pamphlets to be given out to forest visitors and should be updated regularly to ensure the most up-to-date information is available. As well, the Forest Service should close roads for public use if it is found that they are being heavily used by the grizzly bears and should also provide information on what to do if someone meets a grizzly bear on the road to avoid severe human-bear conflicts.

The grizzly bears of the Flathead National Forest have been monitored by environmental conservation groups for years. While helpful in making sure the Forest Service is maintaining the bears in a conservational manner, in this case, the monitoring isn’t needed. The purpose of this paper was to determine whether or not the Forest Service has failed in conserving and maintaining grizzly bear populations within the Flathead National Forest. Originally, the concern that was brought forth by the environmental conservation groups was that the new Forest Forest Plans were taking away or lessening provisions that had been but into place in their newer Land Management Plans, however, through research it was found that this wasn’t the case. Citing Amendment 19 as their major reason, although a good provision, doesn’t stand. The environmental conservation groups fail to acknowledge that the Forest Service does reclaim old roads, how many isn’t a major concern in this paper, however, it is discussed and shown in the Forest Plans that the closing of roads and creating new ones to better fit the grizzly bear migration throughout the forest is present. As well, due to this still being an ongoing situation, the environmental conservation groups hadn’t cited specific information, perhaps in the future they will, but as of now when this paper was written, there was no addition information supporting the environmental conservation groups position.

Not only has the Forest Service implemented numerous conservation strategies and techniques within their Grizzly Bear Management Plan, they have also considered potential harmful effects in their Land Management Plan of 2018. The Forest Service has outlined the possible negative effects to grizzly bear populations and den areas as a result of activities taking place inside the Flathead National Forest, as well as, how the Forest Service will work to ensure the grizzly bears are protected from these activities. Such as, requiring permits for these activities to take place. As well, this paper has provided recommendations to ensure the further conservation of the grizzly bears. When speaking of the grizzly bear population, it is large and well protected under numerous parts laid out in the Forest Services Plans. With the environmental conservation groups also keeping an eye on the species, the possibility of the population falling below wanted numbers is slim. Therefore, going against what was previously stated in this paper, at this time, and with all the available information, the Forest Service is in fact not harming the grizzly bear population within the Flathead National Forest. They are, in fact, providing numerous conservation and management techniques to ensure their future within the forest. Of course, there is always room for further growth and more protections, but as of now, the Forest Service has done their due diligence in protecting the grizzly bears and ensuring their future within the Flathead National Forest.

[i] Final Impact Statement for Grizzly Bear Management, accessed Feburary 24, 2020,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd603494.pdf, 13.

[ii] Ibid, 13.

[iii] Conservationists ask Court to Reinstate Protections for Grizzly Bears and Bull Trout in Flathead National Forest, accessed Feburary 24, 2020,

https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/conservationists-ask-court-to-reinstate-protections-for-grizzly-bears-and-bull-trout-in-flathead-national-forest

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Final Impact Statement for Grizzly Bear Management, accessed Feburary 24, 2020,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd603494.pdf, 17.

[vi] Ibid, 13.

[vii] Ibid, 15-17.

[viii] Ibid, 15-17.

[ix] Land Management Plan 2018, accessed Feburary 24, 2020,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd603490.pdf, 87-89.

[x] Ibid, 87-89.

[xi] Conservationists ask Court to Reinstate Protections for Grizzly Bears and Bull Trout in Flathead National Forest, accessed Feburary 24, 2020,

https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/conservationists-ask-court-to-reinstate-protections-for-grizzly-bears-and-bull-trout-in-flathead-national-forest

[xii] Land Management Plan 2018, accessed Feburary 24, 2020,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd603490.pdf, 87-89.

[xiii] Ibid, 87-89.

[xiv] New Flathead National Forest Plan Will Shape Future Grizzly Management, accessed April 26, 2020,

https://www.mtpr.org/post/new-flathead-national-forest-plan-will-shape-future-grizzly-management

[xv] Final Impact Statement for Grizzly Bears Management, accessed Feburary 24, 2020.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd603494.pdf, 15-17.

[xvi] Ibid, 87-89.

[xvii] Meet the Forest Service, accessed April 30, 2020,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5346156.pdf

[xviii] Final Impact Statement for Grizzly Bears Management, accessed Feburary 24, 2020,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd603494.pdf, 15-17.

REFERENCES

“Conservationists Ask Court to Reinstate Protections for Grizzly Bears and Bull Trout in Flathead National Forest: Latest plan for Flathead National Forest violates Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act,” Earth Justice (website), April 15, 2019, https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/conservationists-ask-court-to-reinstate-protections-for-grizzly-bears-and-bull-trout-in-flathead-national-forest

Mott, Nick, “New Flathead National Forest Plan Will Shape Future Grizzly Management,” Montana Public Radio, Transcript, January 3, 2019, https://www.mtpr.org/post/new-flathead-national-forest-plan-will-shape-future-grizzly-management

United States Department of Agriculture, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan Amendments: Incorporating Habitat Management Direction for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Population (Helena-Lewis and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo National Forests), Volume 3, Forest Service, Northern Region, November 2018, 364 pages, https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd603494.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Flathead National Forest Land Management Plan Flathead, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Missoula, and Powell Counties, Montana, Forest Service, Northern Region, November 2018, 412 pages,

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd603490.pdf

USDA Forest Service, Meet the Forest Service: Caring for the Land and Serving People, https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5346156.pdf

University Avenue Project

Caitlin Curtis

For my reconstruction of University Avenue, I would be implementing sustainable, green practices and designs. I would try to limit the amount of teardown and rebuilding, instead opting for as much as possible the reuse of currently standing buildings. However, building and teardown would occur in the construction of more sustainable housing that could accommodate a much larger population. I would also add more availability to greenery and institute a charge for those opting out of using provided public transportation for this stretch of town; the amount of travel and type of transportation would be considered. Educating the citizens living here about the importance of living sustainably would be a must, therefore, each citizen would be required to either attend public meetings discussing sustainable living or complete an online seminar. Vehicles would be permitted, but with the vast public transportation provided, the public transportation system would be highly recommended to be used.

Housing

These accommodations would include multiuse apartments with businesses on the bottom and apartments on top, high-rise apartments that could accommodate many residents, multi-income apartments that would accommodate a mixture of income brackets, multifamily apartments, and town houses. By including multiple housing types, more people would be able to move to this area and have it be an ideal location. With many apartments being multiuse, the economy of the area would go up because the residents would attract multiple businesses, who would have a vast customer pool. The reason I included some sections of town houses is due to the fact that as the population increases, some people may still prefer to have their own home but live within the city instead of commuting. Town houses have especially become more popular with those who want to own a home but not have all the work that results from owning a large traditional home. They also allow for a sense of community. Due to their close proximity, many can get to know their neighbors without having the inconvenience of noise travel that comes with apartments. These town house options, however, would be a bit more expensive than the many apartment options due to the fact that only one person or family would be able to live in them. Each type of home would have to follow and meet the LEED credentials. LEED is one of the leading sustainable building certifications in the United States. Due to many of the housing types being new builds, each would be equipped with green roofs and potential community gardens either in the vicinity or within given plots. They would also have the option of adding solar panels or rain barrels to their roofs as well. Each type would have access to the public bike/walk path and would also have access to the public bus system. Many would also have the walk path overhead structure attached as well.

Amenities

Cities require a lot of amenities, which include recreation, shopping, places to buy food, businesses, and much more. However, with many different income levels—and in this area especially a mid-to-lower income level—the amenities must be available to meet everyone’s financial ability. On the other hand, many more people would likely also be moving to this area in the future, and so the amenities must also draw others to want to come and relocate/live in this area, so they must be mixed. I would highly recommended incentives for local businesses and organic food providers, as local businesses create a broader sense of community and organic food providers offer a more sustainable way of agriculture.

Sustainable/Green Fixtures

Due to sustainable living becoming a must in many areas of the world, and with the population number rising each day, it will become a must within cities. I would implement LEED certification not only for the buildings but for the entire city as a whole. Besides LEED, however, I would be adding in many sustainable factors. For instance, each roof that is flat would be converted either into a green roof, or a roof garden (see figure 1). Green roofs allow for greenery within a city, which is historically concrete driven, and if they have some grasses and wildflowers growing in them, they would also aid in the pollinator’s journeys through the city. Roof Gardens on the other hand, if applicable, would allow for produce to be grown and harvested by the people. Both of these factors also add in retaining water runoff. I would also implement vertical farming along buildings’ sides (see figure 2). Vertical farming takes up no land, making it perfect within cities. It allows the growth of plants, which can include produce, and also allows for added greenery within the city. I have also sectioned off areas within the tiles of my design for greenhouses. The idea behind greenhouses is, it would give the community the opportunity to continue to grow produce during the cold months and not have to rely so much on importing form other areas or countries. This will be especially important as temperatures continue to change throughout not only the United States but the world. Some produce we are accustomed to may no longer be available, but the residents could provide for themselves. This is especially important since cities are historically the most isolated areas in the states/countries.

Besides adding greenery and vertical farming to the city, I would also add sustainable energy sources such as solar panels and wind turbines. The reason for adding solar panels not only to buildings but also as freestanding structures (see figure 3), is that with current climate change predictions within the Midwest, more sunlight will be occurring. We need to take advantage of it. In the past, solar panels have been ridiculed for their cost and maintenance. Over the years, though, vast improvements have been made. The energy you get back and the money you save far outweighs the consequences of using fossil fuels. The freestanding solar panels would be designed after ones found in the State of Oregon, however, I would make it possible for them to produce some source of light at night by having them hooked up to regular lights to make the bike/walk paths available and safe for use at night.

I would add more sustainable windows within buildings, which is required by LEED, to ensure maximum sunlight usage, therefore decreasing the need to use electricity for lighting during the day. I would also highly recommend strategically placed skylights, which if placed in the area where the sun would hit from the beginning of the day until the evening, would allow maximum natural light to penetrate the buildings. The question of climate change also brings up the issue that as more sunlight becomes available, so will the heat that comes with it. Not to worry, there have been many window shades invented in the last few years that block the heat of the sun but are still impermeable enough to allow light in. However, if this were to become a problem, one could always place sun tolerant plants in the windows, therefore blocking some of the sunlight that would otherwise penetrate into buildings.

Wind turbines have also suffered from ridicule over the years as being eyesores, noisy, and bird killers. My plan is to place some wind turbines on uninhabited land that is closer to the edge of the city/area. With the lake right by this area, wind is a common weather pattern and with the growing weariness of not enough resources on the rise, needs to be taken advantage of. Although wind turbines do need maintenance checkups two to three times per year, the amount of energy they would be able to generate would outweigh the costs. If a local sustainable energy company installed them, then the area would be supporting a local business and would add to the appeal for others to move there.

Another aspect that would be included along buildings and bike paths (in areas with high building impact) would be a temporary/permanent canopy (see Figure 4 and 5). With climate change becoming a more and more discussed topic, the very real threat of increased heat is becoming more real. To allow life to continue, in a somewhat normal way, I have developed a canopy that would either attach to the sides of buildings or stand independently as a permanent design that would block out the sun and provide shade to shoppers and residents. It would be a temporary structure, as it would only be used in the warm months. It would be able to be folded up against the side of buildings and then released and put down when needed. This idea would best work with newly built buildings so that the canopy could be engineered right into the building’s design. The permanent standing structure would likely be implemented straightway with reused older buildings. The top would have solar panel strips that could be lit at night, providing streetlight and light for the paths, and along the legs, either vertical farming or just plant growth to create a path for pollinators. It would easily be able to be made permanent by just simply fully securing the legs to the path/ground and reinforcing any other areas as needed. I would also recommend a permanent standing canopy along the bike/walk path in areas where there are no buildings it could connect to, in order to protect citizens from harsh sun or heat. However, these I would include more of a slit design with plants growing on them, with fewer to no solar panels due to the already implemented free standing solar panel structures.

I would also be including vegetated swales (see figure 6) within large parking lot areas, for they help with the storage and filtration of excessive rainfall while also adding aesthetics to otherwise barren concrete landscapes. They would also aid in pollinators journey throughout the area and even provide a small habitat for some species.

Transportation

I stated in my intro the idea of implementing limited car driving in this area. My reasoning for this being that as climate change progresses and resources become scarcer, less people will have cars. And as cities become more sustainable and walkable, less people will want them. Also, a good way to be a sustainable city is to limit the amount of emissions you allow, therefore decreasing your chance of becoming a hotspot at night or having smog float over the city. However, by limiting the amount of vehicles allowed, obviously service vehicles, delivery, and other emergency would be allowed and not fined as much, but still fined to some degree, requires the use and planning of effective public transportation. I have planned for, currently, three public transportation hubs. One on each end of the stretch of University Avenue, and one in the middle. The idea is that when one arrives, they would park their vehicle at the hub and then either use the public buses or a bike. There would be a small fee attached to use the public bus, due to the fact that it will release fossil fuel emissions, but there would be no fee attached if one decided to use a bike on the bike paths provided, unless the bike is returned damaged, then a fee would appear for repairs. If one would be a common commuter, they would be able to purchase a yearlong pass for the public transportation system, or if one were a resident in the area, they would also be allowed to purchase a pass if they so wished.

Along University Avenue there would be multiple bus stops on both sides to make using the public transportation easy and convenient. There would even be a stop out past the hub on the west side, due to that area being more isolated, and the bike path would be extended.

It would be highly recommended to use the bike paths that would be on either side of the street, which would be cut down from a four lane back to a two lane. The bike path would also be a walking path made of impervious pavement, specifically porous concrete and asphalt, which would include gravel and mixed materials (see figure 7). This type of pavement would be used due to the fact that it would be able to absorb rainwater and runoff, which is common in this area and is able to last for more than 20 years, making at a good investment It would be open to use by everyone, and stations for quick bike fixes would be provided, as would multiple bike racks near/along business and within housing establishments.

Water Management

The placement of rain barrels on the roofs of buildings and the water retention ponds would not only be used to collect rainwater, but also be useful for intense rainfalls and flooding. Also, the grassy open areas and community gardens, would be areas available for excess water storage/standing area. The impervious surface design of the walk/bike path is able to absorb as much as 200 inches of water each hour if necessary. This water would then be absorbed either into the underground water aquifer, or into the underground water filtration system to then by recycled back to the citizens to be used for what is needed.

Tiles

Now that my big changes and ideas have been broken down among the major categories, I will now be breaking them down even further within the tiles of the design. I do have to warn that parts of the tiles tend to run into each other, and so I will only discuss some parts of the tiles within the tile that they are in the majority.

Tile 1

Tile one consists of the top western half of University Avenue. At the farthest point I have placed one of the three public transportation hubs, with the idea that those coming in from this way would opt to park their car and use the public buses provided or bikes they could rent. Using the bus would require a small fee, however, the bike/walk paths would be free to use. If additional parking would be needed, a section of the parking lot of the big building across the street could be arranged. Along this stretch of University Avenue, I have implemented green roofs for all the big industrial-sized buildings, the new apartment/mixed used buildings I would be adding by implementing eminent domain, as well as outfitting some of the existing buildings. I would also add solar panels and rain barrels to roofs, as well as the temporary/permanent walkway structure that would also have added greener/vertical farming and solar panel strips. I have also added an area strictly for parking bikes, and sectioned off multiple areas where shops, businesses, restaurants, cafés, or department stores could reside. Within this section I also have an area for a shopping mall to be formed, which would enclose many businesses and shops as well. There is a public library and church within this tiles design. One unique part of this tile is that I situated a greenhouse on the corner of one of the streets. I did this because this was catalyst site four, which had petroleum-impacted soil and groundwater. I placed this here, not only so those living within this tile could have a community greenhouse, but also to elevate and prevent further soil and groundwater impacts. There are also many green areas and a community garden within this tile, as well as multiple public transportation stops for the buses and multiple free-standing solar panels along the bike/walk path. I do have a gas station within this tile in the event service vehicles, shipping vehicles, or emergency vehicles would need to fill up, or those who opt out of using public transport and pay the cost to drive their vehicle through University Avenue.

Tile 2

This tile contains a lot more housing options in apartment style, but also some townhome options. It also contains a multiuse business building, with the idea that multiple businesses would use the space. Within this tile the hospital, doctors’ offices, and eye care areas are located. Again, everything for the most part has been green roofed, equipped with solar panels, some with rain barrels to collect rainwater, the walkway structure would be present, I also have skylights within the design of some of the buildings in this tile. Within the design, a hotel is situated to entice others to come and stay. The second public transportation hub is situated within this tile as well, as along with a large expanse of greenhouses and public gardens. The idea behind these is that they would be not only for the public use but for supermarkets as well. This would require sanctioning off areas to ensure people only use the parts they are allowed to use, but would overall, be available to the community. I have also added a children’s play park and a school, which could be any grade level. My idea for adding a school is based on the fact that more people moving to the area, the ease with getting to the school would decrease the stress of the parents trying to get not only their children to school but themselves to work as well. I have also designed to reuse one of the already established buildings and turn it into a movie theater to add a place of recreation for citizens. I added a youth center and community basketball court. The youth center would be available to children whose parents work late or they just need a place to go when bored to stay out of trouble. It could also hold special events just for youth to create a stronger sense of community. Another sustainable factor I have added specifically in this tile is a co-op grocery store with their own garden. This would raise awareness of not only local produce but organic produce and products as well. Tile two is also the first tile in which wind turbines are present, which will take advantage of the wind to generate renewable energy for the community.

Tile 3

Tile three is a little more spaced out as you go east, but still will have a wide variety of housing options as well as a supermarket, diners, shops, businesses, restaurants, a shopping center, an office building, boutiques, a salon. It will also have another hotel, as well as a dentist office and an Urgent Care, which would also include some doctors’ offices. Although there is a bit more space in the layout, everything is still connected with public transportation and the bike/walk path as well as multiple opportunities for community interaction. There is also a large section of land within this tile designated to wind turbines, as well as large-to-medium-sized patches for community gardens. Again, most of the buildings will be equipped with green roofs as well as having the walkway structure present along the paths.

Tile 4

Tile four has a nice mix of residential, business, and open green space. The big open green space and big community garden are there as a result of petroleum impacted soil/groundwater, and buildings containing not only asbestos but lead paint as well. Within my catalyst site section, I explain why I would take action to make this into a grassy land. Within this section I have not only businesses, shops, and multiple housing options, but I also have the buildings sectioned off for an indoor farmers market. These buildings could be used to allow a farmer’s market to occur all year long, or it could be used to hold other special events or trading opportunities among the residents. In tile four, I also have a few places for food as well.

Tile 5

Tile five contains not one but two catalyst sites. For the one, I would use power of eminent domain to remove the homeowners currently living there and turn the whole area into a wooded park area with hiking trails within. This would not only provide a large habitat area for species but would help greatly with the air quality and a decrease in air pollution for this area. For the other catalyst site, I would recommend not changing anything with the landscape and only dig up the petroleum storage tanks if a leakage is detected due to the threat that more damage could be done and more money ultimately spent in the process of trying to remove them. Obviously, if leakage is found, then they would need to be dug up and disposed of properly, but for now, I would leave it as an open grass/field area. Perhaps in the future it could be used as a sports area for soccer, football, or lacrosse. Due to the fact that as University Avenue heads east, it becomes more isolated and more situated with vegetation, within my design I have provided less development. Having said that, the development that I have included in my design would be able to accommodate many, just with less buildings. For example, within the design I have placed high-rise apartment buildings as well as mixed-use apartment buildings, a few town homes, a few regular apartments, and some multifamily apartment buildings. Although it is less than the other tiles, a vast amount of people will still be able to reside there. I have also included a few amenities so that those living within this section of University Avenue wouldn’t have to travel all the way across town. I also did this because within my design for tile five I have included senior citizen living. They would have access to a supermarket, a diner, department stores, a bakery, as well as a large children’s park for when their families come to visit, and their grandchildren want to go play. They would have easy access to public transportation as well as access to the bike/walk path if they choose, to include the forest hiking paths. I have included senior living because as people get older they want to be able to stay in the area they have always lived, but also remain independent and involved in their community, and this design would allow them to do so.

Tile 6

Within tile six we have the third and final public transportation hub, which also ends up being the largest (just based on available land space), as well as the most isolated part of housing along University Avenue. Although isolated by distance, the housing is still connected via public transportation as well as to the walk/bike path that stretches along the whole University Avenue. At this end of University Avenue there are more wind turbines present, along with a few free-standing solar panels along the walk/bike path. The housing in this area would mainly be traditional housing, with a few multiuse apartment buildings sprinkled in. The idea behind this is, because they are a bit more isolated from the main drag, less people would choose to go all the way out there unless they lived there. However, because there is a larger concentration I would recommend still having some businesses out in that area. I have also provided an area for recreation and a community garden.

Catalyst Sites

There are a few catalyst sites within University Avenue that must be pointed out and discussed according to how to deal with them and what should be done with them.

Catalyst Site 1 has petroleum polluted soil and groundwater. The best remediation method for petroleum pollution is to not allow construction on the land, turn it into a green area, and test the soil and groundwater to determine amount of pollution and damage. Therefore, I recommend converting this large area into a wooded forest area with hiking paths within to allow local residents to enjoy nature and provide a large habitat within the urbanized area for a variety of species, including floral and fauna. Before planting more trees and plants and turning this piece of land into a full forest, the testing of the soil and groundwater would have to be done. This will help to determine what kind of plants and animals would be able to survive here and whether or not anything would need to be added. There are some homes already developed here, I would suggest either paying these homeowners to move and make this completely a forest area, or I would allow them to stay but make it so no more development would be allowed, essentially making it a protected area.

Catalyst Site 2 is more complicated than Catalyst Site 1. It not only has petroleum polluted soil and groundwater, but also has buildings with asbestos containing material and lead paint. Not only would the soil and groundwater have to be tested and treated, but so would the building, either in revamping it or in the process of tearing it down. In my design, I would opt to treat the asbestos- and lead-contaminated building, and then I would opt to tear it down and dispose of it and replace it with a lush green area with many different types of grasses and native vegetation, perhaps even a community garden. My reasoning for this is because petroleum polluted soil is very hard to treat, and so by restoring some of the polluted land to vegetation may help with filtering out the pollutants, but also prevent further pollution. I do, however, within my design show new buildings to be built closer to the street. My reason for this is because there is a projection of many more people choosing to live in this area, and although it is an urban area, greenery is needed. Also, depending on how long the soil sat and what is done in efforts to treat it, it’s possible it could potentially become an area for urban agriculture, with an emphasis on sustainable agriculture.

Catalyst Site 3 also has petroleum impacted soil. The building is also quite large, since there are no negatives contained within the building, I would green roof the roof and add solar panels and rain barrels to collect water. What the area wants to do with the green-vamped building would be up to them. It could be spilt up into housing segments or used by another business, be used as a community center, or whatever fit the community's needs. I would, however, advise soil testing, planting of vegetation swales within the parking lot, and increasing the amount of vegetation along the edges. Due to the projected increase of citizens and the proposed increase in public transportation, the number of vehicles would hopefully decrease, resulting in less need of large parking lots.

Catalyst Site 4 is yet another area that has petroleum impacted soil and groundwater. For this area, I suggest the building of a community greenhouse and planting native grasses and other vegetation for the rest of the area. This would create a green area citizen could use but also promote another way of growing crops and a wide variety of plants.

Catalyst Site 5 has underground petroleum storage tanks. My recommendation would be to test the soil for any potential tankage leakage. If none is present, I would not at that time remove them, for in my opinion, the cost of digging them up safely, removing, and then discarding the material within the tanks is very expensive and could result in leaks than if they stayed where they were. However, if leakage is detected, then I would recommend removing them as safely as possible and then treat the soil. But for now, within my design, I would leave it as it is