Outline

= = (As of 12/8/2010) = = Observations Collected from todays presentation
 * General Management Plan for Lake Raleigh Woods**


 * Executive Summary**

**1. Introduction** Lake Raleigh Woods (LRW), situated on the Centennial Campus of North Carolina State University, lies east of the western boundary of Centennial Campus, south of Walnut Creek and west of Lake Raleigh, west of the Chancellors Residence, and north of the parking lots serving Centennial Campus Middle School and The Friday Institute. One of NC State's "Hallowed Places," LRW garners the interest of diverse members of the NC State University community and prompts a variety of concerns related to those members' focus of interest. Proposed development of residential and office complexes, the perceived threat that prompted action resulting in the Business Plan for Lake Raleigh Woods in 2005, has been removed from the Centennial Campus Master Plan. Construction of the Chancellor's residence proposed in that Business Plan progresses at present with completion and occupancy expected during 2011. Since acceptance of the Business Plan and completion of an environmental assessment in 2006, no further substantive action concerning LRW has occurred. This general management plan focuses attention on the need to galvanize appropriate elements in the North Carolina State University community to sustain the values inherent in Lake Raleigh Woods.The structure of this general management plan incorporates two approaches to creating such a document. One contribution comes from the management plan template created by WakeNature as an outgrowth of its effort to recognize and foster stewardship of places qualifying as //WakeNature Preserves//. The other contribution comes from a document describing the make up and responsibilities to be vested in a governing body to be called the Lake Raleigh Woods Board. Ultimately, authors of this draft general management plan believe LRW should be considered for designation as a //WakeNature Preserve// for reasons articulated below. At such time as that application process may be undertaken, certain features in the general plan that might seem extranoeous at the moment would be obligatory. In any case, the document presented here is a working draft to be amended through time as further information and decisions come forth.

**//B. Qualifying Features (maybe change name to "Potential Benefits" or something else, since our situation and approach is different from WakeNature).//** -Developed by everyone based on findings (Criteria established by Jenny, Shawn and Ross) Potential Benefits The Lake Raleigh Woods Reserve area was created because the community recognized the value of the natural space on Centennial Campus. The site is set aside for natural education and recreation. Beyond these obvious benefits, the site provides the benefit of ecosystem services. It provides habitat for wildlife. The presence of the reserve on campus can be a source of pride for the university to attract new students and donor and grant money for research.
 * A.?**


 * **Low-impact Classroom** ||  ||
 * Teaching Resource? || Place to report collected data ||
 * Research Resource? ||  ||
 * Functioning Watershed? ||  ||
 * Cultural/Histori**//c//** ||  ||

> **//C. General Vision and Goals.//** --> Amy and Julie. Our current vision is to sustain the vision of 2006 management proposal. However, we may need to re-evaluate based on conflicting criteria. > A classroom at Lake Raleigh Woods would be best described as an open air classroom. It would be expected that the classroom would have 25 to 35 tables designed for group work, access to electricity, access to water and bathroom facilities, and minimal impact to the landscape. In addition some storage space would be necessary for securing field equipment and student supplies. A classroom at Lake Raleigh Woods has the potential to be the cornerstone of education. A classroom will provided the opportunity to more readily access Lake Raleigh Woods, an area known for extensive data collection, and then share this information in the field. This is critical to exposing students to seeing the bigger picture. A preliminary study showed that as many as 90 students at a time may be utilizing Lake Raleigh Woods to gather data. Having a classroom will provide the opportunity to share gathered data in the field. >

Take classroom out there:: provide the students the opportunity to sit around at relatively small tables and you send them off to do data collection. They are able to come back together and gather data


 * //D. Use.//**

The following matrix presents an array of four user groups and identifies which of them are most likely to avail themselves of uses and activities for which LRWs is to be managed. The fact that individuals may actually occupy more than one of the user groups is assumed. Further, the matrix is not intended to preclude members of user groups from using the site for any uses for which their group is not identified as likely users. Heretofore, no systematic documentation of site use nor plan for monitoring site use has existed; no authority for determining use priority or mediating incompatible uses has existed; and casual or academically intentional users have been equally accommodated within the boundaries of LRW.
 * **Uses and Activities** ||= **NC State classes** ||= **Centennial Middle School** ||= **University Community** ||= **General Public** ||
 * Ecological study ||= X ||= X ||= X ||= X ||
 * Research ||= X ||= X ||=  ||=   ||
 * Environmental Education ||= X ||= X ||=  ||=   ||
 * Active Recreation ||= X ||= X ||= X ||= X ||


 * E. Plan Duration**: the General Plan for Lake Raleigh Woods is not time limited at this point**//.//**

//Development Plan//
 * Location of access points, vehicle access and trails: trails are being re-mapped; we foresee no vehicle access to the site beyond the proposed pavilion structure
 * Location of site improvements (shelters, toilet facilities, wells?):

=

 * 2. Property Description.** This section contains a detailed description of the property boundaries, context, and access; natural features of the property; the history of its management; and expectations for public use.=====


 * //A. Boundaries & Context.//**

Basin: Neuse Sub watershed: Walnut Creek Township: Raleigh || Size: ~96 acres Type of Protection: Hallowed Ground Owner: NC State University Address: Centennial Campus, NC State University || Directions: From the beltline, take the Western Boulevard exit towards downtown. Make a right onto Avent Ferry Rd followed by a left on Varsity into Centennial Campus. At the intersection of Main Campus Drive and Varsity make a right and follow the road around until you pass the golf course on the left and the NCSU Alumni Center on the right. Currently parking for access to the site is limited to the edge of Centennial Middle School parking lot and the Alumni Center parking lot to the east. The boundaries of the proposed woods begin at the north-western edge of Centennial Campus and move south and east until butting up against Lake Raleigh on the east and Centennial Middle School to the south. The eastern portion of the woods extends to the Alumni Center parking lot and previously included land now occupied by the new Chancellor’s residence. A fence installed on the site has been used to determine the boundaries of the woods around the Chancellor’s residence. The northern section of the woods has been deemed a Primary Tree Conservation area(~30 acres) by the university in accordance with City of Raleigh zoning conditions placed on the land (Centennial Zoning Document, 1987). (Chose this map because it provides context to the site; indicating development around LRW, proximity to Centennial facilities, and location within Raleigh/Wake County)
 * USGS 7.5 Quad: Raleigh West

=1. Description: WE NEED TO FILL THIS IN>>>>>>>>Will be a repeat of EA from 2006.=
 * //B. Physical Features.//** **Charles, Shawn, Helene**

2. Topography/Hydrology Map 3. Soils Map 4. Trails Map


 * //C. Biological and Qualifying Features.//** Meg, Julie, Charles, Ross, previous assessment. **//(New information added from the March, 2006 Environmental Assessment)//**

//Intrinsic Natural Values//

To date botanical inventories have identified approximately 200 species of vascular plants. These come from 69 families and collectively represent one of the highest values for species richness in the Raleigh area. As was noted in the original Business Plan and the Environmental Assessment (EA) in 2005 and 2006, respectively, "the more common natural plant community types delineated are based on Piedmont forest cover types as described in Schafale and Weakley's (1990) Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Additional communities were described by [a] botanical team." A high number of fungi and other non-vascular species have been observed but have yet to be identified. The inventories of Lake Raleigh Woods fauna are compiled from a number of sources, including class lists from previous courses and field notes of a number of competent naturalists. Lists of plant and animal species are included in the environmental assessment produced in 2006 for the LRW Business Plan, but the current status of biological features or natural communities is summarized in the following table. 7.1 miles of trail ||  || Unsustainable trail network created through many years of informal visitor use. Major concerns include stream crossings, root exposure, trail erosion, technical trail features, and gradients beyond 10%. || Trails bring visitors to the resource. A sustainable trail network permits recreation, research, environmental education, and maintenance efforts with minimal impacts to the resource itself. Unsustainable trail networks cause unneccessary impact to the resource and are potentially dangerous for visitors. || =Observed Vegetation Characteristics (Fall 2010)= ** Site Index Inventory of Pine Successional Stand along Southern Boundary ** A. Methods A preliminary inventory of the site was performed on the southern pine stand in October 2010. This information was gathered to establish the stand density within this portion of the woods in order to assess a need for thinning. Data collected at the time of the inventory were diameter at breast height and species. Using these data, an estimation of trees per acre, basal area per acre and average stand diameter were calculated. These values were also broken down by hardwood and pine species.
 * ~ Feature or Natural Community ||~ Inventory Status ||~ Species ||~ Condition as Observed in F2010 ||~ Relative Significance of Feature or Community ||
 * Trail Network || GPS completed 2010
 * Herbs, Vines and Woody Plants || Species list from 2005 ||=  || No reason to suspect major changes || Provides botany classes with examples for study //in situ// ||
 * Non-vascular bryophytes || Species list from 2005 ||= 2 ||  ||   ||
 * Ferns and fern allies || Species list from 2005 ||= 15 ||  ||   ||
 * Herbaceous (Flowering) || Species list from 2005 ||= 101 ||  ||   ||
 * Vines (Flowering) || Species list from 2005 ||= 13 ||  ||   ||
 * Woody shrubs and trees || Species list from 2005 ||= 64 ||  ||   ||
 * Reptiles || Potential list in 2006 EA ||= 21 ||  || Box turtle tracking has been ongoing on Centennial Campus ||
 * Mammals || Potential list in 2006 EA ||= 16 || Deer induced herbivory increasing || Deer grazing pressure threatens herbaceous diversity ||
 * Amphibians || Potential list in 2006 EA ||= 14 ||  ||   ||
 * Avifauna || Historic list of observed species ||= 92 || No known change from 2005 || Historic record is exceptional legacy of research ||
 * Butterflies and moths || Lists of observed spp in 2006 EA ||= 10 ||  ||   ||
 * Other invertebrates ||  ||= 47 ||   ||   ||
 * Lichens || Preliminary list; inventory needed ||= 36 || Air quality sensitive species observed || Potential county record observed 12 November 2010 ||
 * Dry Oak-Hickory (Piedmont subtype) || Graphic depiction but no GPS ||=  ||   ||   ||
 * Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory (Piedmont subtype) || Graphic depiction but no GPS ||=  ||   ||   ||
 * Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory (Pine mix phase) || Graphic depiction but no GPS ||=  ||   ||   ||
 * Pinus echinata || Upland component inventoried at 10% ||=  || Requires finer inventory to assess condition || Shortleaf pine stands are becoming rare in Raleigh ||
 * Pinus Successional Forest (10-20 years) || Upland component inventoried at 10% ||=  || Satisfactory stocking, below self thinning density || Common throughout Piedmont ||
 * Pinus Successional Forest (20-50 years) || Upland component inventoried at 10% ||=  || Satisfactory stocking, below self thinning density || Common throughout Piedmont ||
 * Pinus Successional Forest (50-100 years)) || Upland component inventoried at 10% ||=  || Satisfactory stocking, below self thinning density || Common throughout Piedmont ||
 * Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest || Graphic depiction but no GPS ||=  ||   ||   ||
 * Mesic Mixed Hardwood (Liriodendron-Fern Cove) || Graphic depiction but no GPS ||=  ||   ||   ||
 * Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory (Asimina Knoll) || Graphic depiction but no GPS ||=  ||   ||   ||
 * Basic Mesic Hardwood || Graphic depiction but no GPS ||=  ||   ||   ||
 * Boggy Stream Head || Graphic depiction but no GPS ||=  ||   ||   ||
 * Piedmont Alluvial Fan || Graphic depiction but no GPS ||=  ||   ||   ||
 * Fungi || No known inventory exists ||= ? || Abundant variety of fruiting bodies || Lack of soil disturbance may foster otherwise rare species ||
 * Invasive plant species || Preliminary GPS inventory Fall 2010 ||=  || Infestations as mapped ||   ||
 * 1) Vegetation Inventory **

B. Results Within the 21 acre pine stand, an estimate of 450 trees/acre was calculated. When separating the data by hardwood and pine species, we found that trees/acre estimates were higher for hardwoods vs. pines (289:154), but that the basal area occupied by pine species was much greater, indicating the hardwood population is much younger in this part of the woods. Average stand diameter was estimated to be 8.0 inches, though again pines were much larger (11.3in vs. 6.2in). The average stand diameter(D) and trees per acre (N) estimates were used to calculate a stand density index (SDI) for the site using a calculation intended for Loblolly Pine plantations in the south. While not optimal, there doesn’t appear to be much in the literature for estimating the SDI for a natural stand and this method will serve as a proxy for SDI on the site. The equation used is a variation of the one used by Rienke (SDI 1933): ln(SDI) = -3.4661 + 1.5053ln(D) +ln(N) (1). By substituting D and N from the previously calculated stand values, we were able to determine that the SDI for the entire site was 320, and 185 and 141 for Pine and Hardwood respectively. Three critical stand density boundaries were used in the method: Maximum SDI (400), Crown Closure (160) and Lower Limit of Self Thinning (220). An interpolated density surface was created in GIS to visualize where the most populated portions of the pine stand were. This analysis revealed that trees are most dense along the southern edge of the site, nearest Centennial Middle School. The TPA estimates for this portion of the site max out at approximately 650 trees/acre, indicating that if thinning were to be done, this area should be attacked first.

C. Discussion Based on the values obtained for Pine we can see that thinning is not necessary for this site as it is less than the self thinning limit. Depending on management protocols for the site into the future, it may be useful to remove some of the larger pines to encourage the site to become a hardwood dominated forest and mirror the rest of Lake Raleigh Woods.

GIS analysis indicates the greatest density of trees to be along the southern edge of the site. This area has also been identified as the most suitable location for placement of a classroom or meeting pavilion, due to its proximity to parking at the middle school. Since trees must be removed in order to build the classroom this area becomes more ideal for its placement.


 * 2) Nonnative Invasive Plants**

Lake Raleigh Woods is heavily compromised by large populations of nonnative invasive plant species. A survey of invasive plants revealed that there are over ten acres of dense autumn olive thickets in the heart of LRWs, at least 1.5 acres of dense privet with microstegium in the northern floodplains of LRWs, and a line of Lespedeza mixed with microstegium along the entire southern border of LRWs. The methods and results of the survey are described below.

**a. Methods** A Trimble GeoExplorer, a handheld GPS unit, was used to map points, trails, and polygons to delineate occurrences of invasive plant species within Lake Raleigh Woods. A data dictionary was created and installed on the GPS unit before taking measurements in the field to allow for more detail in data collection. A boundary shapefile for LRWs was also installed to ensure that all measurements were taken within, or in close proximity to, the boundaries of LRWs. The data was gathered over three visits to LRWs with a total approximate time of 10 hours in the field.

The areas targeted during the search were the boundaries, three lines through the interior of LRWs, and a majority of the trails running throughout LRWs. The entire boundary was walked except for the area of LRWs extending east of the new Chancellor’s Residence and a section of the northern boundary. The first line walked through the interior of LRWs was walked along a bearing of South 5˚ West and began from the North, at the narrowest point of the property, at two chains (132 ft) East of the Western boundary. The second line was walked along a bearing of North 5˚ East and began from the south at four chains (264 ft) East of the Western boundary. The third line was walked along a bearing of South 5˚ West and began from the North, just below the narrowest point in the property, at approximately 9 chains (594 ft) East of the Western boundary. There was not enough time to walk all of the trails at LRWs but a majority of the trails were walked, especially the trails running close to the boundary of LRWs.

All invasive plants easily distinguished within line-of-sight, along the paths walked, were mapped as points, lines, or polygons. Points were taken at locations where there were between 1 to 30 invasive plants within a 30 foot radius. Lines were taken when the invasive plants were distributed in a linear fashion, such as the lespedeza (//lespedeza cuneata//) and microstegium (//microstegium viminium//) that hugged the Southern border of Lake Raleigh Woods. Polygons were taken when there were greater than 30 invasive plant species clumped closely together and could easily be distinguished as the dominant plant species covering the ground or understory.

In Some areas, such as the Northern portion of LRWs, all occurrences of invasive plants were not documented due to limited time and land feature barriers. In the Northern portion of LRWs, only the areas with the thickest portions of invasive plants were mapped, but it appeared that privet (//ligustrum// species) and microstegium was distributed throughout the entire floodplain area in varying degrees of density and height. Also in the Northern portion of LRWs, there was a creek that was not crossed due to its depth and a lack of obvious crossings. On the other side of this creek, there was a fairly thick stand of privet directly north of the large privet stand shown in the invasive species map (See invasive plant map below) and what appeared to be dead clumps of microstegium.

** b. Results ** The survey resulted in 85 points, 10 lines, and 4 polygons collected delineating the location of invasive plant locations. Below is a table describing the occurrences of the most prevalent invasive plant species discovered:


 * || Autumn Olive (//elaeagnus umballata//) || Privet (//ligustrum// species) || Microstegium (//microstegium viminium//) || Lespedeza (//lespedeza Cuneata//) ||
 * Points || 67 || 12 || 5 || 0 ||
 * Trails || 2 || 0 || 7 || 7 ||
 * Polygons || 3 || 1 || 0 || 0 ||

As indicated in the table above, autumn olive is by far the most prevalent species observed in LRWs followed by privet and microstegium. The autumn olive polygons cover a little over ten acreas and appear to be spreading to most other gradual hillsides within LRWs. There are several dense thickets of privet in the northern floodplain section of LRWs. The one privet stand mapped is a little over 1.5 acres. Another dense privet stand lies north of the one mapped, but was not mapped due the terrain. Microstegium also grows very thickly along the northern floodplain. It completely blankets the ground under the dense privet stand documented in the map below. Outside of the invasive polygon in the northern floodplain, privet and microstegium appear to occur fairly regularly throughout the floodplain landscape. Privet sapplings appear to be sprouting up nearly everywhere, and anywhere the newly fallen leaf cover wasn't too thick the remnants of thick microstegium beds was obvious.

There appear to be some relationships between certain land features, either man-made or natural, and certain invasive plant species. Three of these relationships are most notable and deserve a brief discussion. The first relationship is between autumn olive and gradual hill slopes surrounding streams beds. The autumn olive appears to be most dense on gradual slopes (slopes of approximately 10-30˚). The density of autumn olive infestations thinned out in the flat valleys of the stream beds, on the flat upland areas, and on very steep slopes. This was not an expected find and deserves further research to discern if it is merely an anomaly. The second relationship is between microstegium and low lying stream beds or floodplains. The relationship is most likely due to the continuous disturbance cycles of rain and flooding that wash in microstegium seeds allowing them to take root and outcompete native plants. The third relationship is between lespedeza and heavily disturbed areas with high light. Lespedeza is mainly found along the southern border at the edge of LRWs forest edges. This relationship is most likely attributed to these areas being heavily disturbed, which allows lespedeza to take root initially, and the high availability of sun light, which lespedeza prefers. The fact that the trails were so extensive within LRWs, approximately 8 miles of trails within 96 acre, made connecting any relationships between the trails and invasive plant species unreliable.

Some limitations on the data collected include the data collectors have an incomplete knowledge of all invasive plant species and the time of year being winter which made some plants difficult to identify. Previous lists of LRWs plant species list more invasive plant species than were documented in this study. Therefore, it is probable that the lists included in this study are not comprehensive. The data collection design could also be refined for future studies. One suggestion is the data dictionary could use a section for grasses, forbs, and sedges.


 * ** Invasive Plants Observed During Survey (2010) ** || ** Invasive Plants Listed in Environmental Assessment (2006) ** ||
 * Autumn Olive (//elaeagnus umballata//) || Autumn Olive (//elaeagnus umballata//) ||
 * Chinese Privet (//ligustrum sinense//) || Chinese Privet (//ligustrum sinense//) ||
 * Silver thorn (//elaeagnus pungens//) || Silver thorn (//elaeagnus pungens//) ||
 * Nandina (//nandina Domestica//) || Nandina (//nandina Domestica//) ||
 * Lespedeza (//lespedeza cuneata//) || Multiflora Rose (//rosa Multiflora//) ||
 * Bradford Pear (//pyrus calleryana//) || Japanese Honeysuckle (//lonicera Japonica//) ||
 * Microstegium (//microstegium vimineum//) || Kudzu (//pueraria lobata//) ||
 * True Pampas Grass (//cortaderia selloana//) ||  ||

3) Trail System __Current Trails__

The current trail system results from many years of informal trail creation and use. Overall, there is 6.1 miles of trail within a 7.1 mile network that exists from the Lake Raleigh Dam to the Lake Raleigh Woods site (**Figure 1**). Although the boundaries contain only 6.1 miles of trail it is important to recognize the external trails since visitors can and will access the LRW trails from them. Due to its informal nature the trail system at large is unsustainable. This notion was confirmed with a recent trail assessment. Problems with the current trail system include: extreme slopes, informal trail creation, informal trail features, root exposure, soil erosion, and stream crossings (**Figure 2**). One major issue is the trail that follows Lake Raleigh. The trail is heavily used by fisherman and is in extremely poor condition. Much of the trail surface has eroded into Lake Raleigh and is potentially dangerous for visitors.



Points of concern are raised by the current assessment of conditions: = 1) HERBIVORY IMPACTS = Mammalian herbivory reduces the growth and regeneration of tree saplings and herbaceous plants throughout eastern North America . Consequently, forest community dynamics can be irreversibly impacted. In the case of Lake Raleigh Woods (LRW) white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) browse is prolific. We suspect that instances of deer browse have been intensified as a result of the recent urbanization of previously crop and forest lands. When properly managed, deer constitute an important member of a healthy ecosystem. However, unnaturally high population densities are detrimental to overall community function.  //**Bottomland** **hardwoods**//  Although bottomland hardwood areas have disappeared across the U.S., they tend to be widely spread piedmont/coastal plain of the south east. These areas are essential to flood control, wildlife, and water quality. Of particular concern in LRW is the preservation of remaining bottomland hardwood forests whose browsed seedlings are more susceptible to drought. Less browsed species mortality rates decrease, and their growth rates increase thus increasing the occurrence of problematic invasive species and threatening the regeneration of quality timber species. Deer harvesting to keep population levels low can increase the potential for regeneration and continued health of these forests. //**Species of concern**// Herbaceous woodland plants are highly palatable to deer. Several rare species and federally listed species of cultural significance in LRW are highly susceptible to local extinction as a result of deer browse. U= Unusual, E = Endangered, CE = Commercially Exploited, CS = Culturally Significant USDA Plant List
 * Common Name || Scientific Name || Status ||
 * Pink Lady’s Slipper || //Cypripedium acaule// || Federal Watch List, GA U, TN CE and E, ||
 * Catesby’s Trillium || //Trillium catesbaei// || common indicator of deer browsing intensity; preferred browse species; decline predictably in height as a result of deer browsing ||
 * Wild Quinine || //Parthenium// || CS ||
 * Pawpaw || Asimine triloba || CS ||
 * Sassafras || //Sassafras albidum// || CS ||

2) Trails 3) Invasive Species = = 1. Property Ownership 2.
 * D. Land History (Shawn and Helene)**

1.Previous Use 2.Current Passive Management
 * //E. Management History.//**


 * //3. Specific Management Objectives.//**

Establish a sustainable trail system that will facilitate resource preservation, education, research, and outdoor recreation.
 * Protect water quality
 * Build a simple ecological education structure
 * Control and reduce infestations of invasive, especially exotic species
 * Reduce deer herbivory to protect desirable herbaceous plant diversity
 * Conserve reptile and amphibian habitats to maintain stable pooulations.
 * Implement systematic trail management
 * Maintain an approriate mix of recreation and education activities


 * 4. Management Prescriptions.**


 * __Recreation / Trail Management__**

The information presented here is designed to encourage active management at Lake Raleigh Woods for the objectives stated above. Management prescriptions presented in this document address environmental, safety, and managerial issues resulting from many years of informal trail creation and use. Specific management efforts will include: establishing a sustainable trail system, establishing a management structure, trail maintenance schedule, continued site monitoring and other research efforts. In the future, seasonal and/or annual work plans will be created to efficiently and actively manage all aspects of recreation at Lake Raleigh Woods.


 * __Administration__**

__Governing Body__ The Lake Raleigh Woods site would be governed by North Carolina State University through the Board of Trustees.

__Advisory Committee__ An advisory committee would be needed to oversee management of the site and to present progress, needs, and other pertinent administrative tasks to the governing body when necessary. The advisory committee would include members of the College of Natural Resources, University Administrators, and others to be determined at a later date.

__Maintenance__ A site manager will be needed to monitor and perform routine tasks in coordination with the overall site management plan. Initially a doctoral student from CNR could be appointed the position as site manager until a full time position could be created. The site manager could be assisted by undergraduate and graduate students from the College of Natural Resources.

__Proposed Guidelines__ 1. Priority for use of trails and facilities at Lake Raleigh Woods is faculty, staff, and students of North Carolina State University. Public use of LRW is privilege and should be treated as such. 2. Foot traffic only. As of this time no biking is permitted due to current trail conditions. 3. Park will be open from dusk to dawn. No overnight camping. 4. Dogs are permitted but MUST be on a leash at all times. 5. No littering. 6. Fishing is permitted but a current North Carolina fishing license is required. 7. No hunting. 8. Visitors must stay on designated trails and adhere to signs that restrict use of specific trails. 9. No fires. 10. No glass bottles.

__Enforcement__ Visitors who do not adhere to the rules listed above may lose privileges to the site. NCSU campus police and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be contacted in cases of illegal activity.

__Emergency Access__ Currently there will be no vehicle access other than to the outdoor classroom facility. However, many of the trails are wide enough to fit an emergency vehicle if the situation requires immediate attention. The lake also provides an avenue for emergency access by a water vehicle.

__User Groups__

Historically the Lake Raleigh Woods trail system has been used for any and all forms of recreation. A visitor use survey done in 2004 by NCSU faculty member, Dr. Roger Moore, complemented by a visit survey done in 2010 by NCSU graduate students found the following recreation uses:

· Camping · Dog Walking · Fishing · Geo-caching · Hiking (includes class outings) · Mountain Biking · Trail Running

In order to meet the vision of the overall land management, we recommend LRW be open to the following forms of recreation:

· Dog Walking · Fishing · Hiking (including class outings) · Trail Running

The decision to exclude camping, geo-caching, and mountain biking resulted from an assessment of current resource conditions, visitor use, and recreation opportunities provided by other parks in the surrounding area. In the future geo-caching and mountain biking opportunities may be available at LRW if interested recreation groups can provide self-management strategies to the University.

No access fees will be required for access to the park.

Resource and visitor monitoring should be done frequently to ensure resource and visitor safety. This should be facilitated through the College of Natural Resources and the site manager.

__Proposed Trail System__

The proposed trail system would be sustainable, encourage visitor use, and limit the amount of environmental and social impacts at Lake Raleigh Woods. Areas where multiple trails parallel each other need to be reduced to one trail. Informal trail features and obstructions should be removed. Several of the trails including the newly created mountain bike trails should be allowed to regenerate. The lake trail needs to be resurfaced or rerouted for visitor safety and resource protection. Finally, the number of access points or trail heads should be reduced to three (**Figure 3**). This focuses visitors into main access points that increase visitor education of park information and rules while preventing unnecessary resource degradation.

__Future Trail Construction__

Trail construction will be required for areas where stream crossings and slopes greater than 10% occur. Stream crossings will require bridges that meet construction standards determined by use and safety regulations. Slopes that exceed 10% will require switchbacks or stairways that ensure safety of the visitors and protect the soil from eroding and possibly contributing to sedimentation of Lake Raleigh.

__Trail Surfaces__

Currently the trail surface is adequate in most areas. The only areas that require a new trail surface include the lake trail. A natural surface like wood chips or gravel would take impact off the existing, eroding soils while preserving the natural character of Lake Raleigh Woods.

__Adjacent Lands and Trail Considerations__

Consideration is needed for the trails outside of the Lake Raleigh Woods boundary. The trails that run behind the Chancellors Residence and the Alumni Center should be managed as well. These trails connect to the current trail system and currently impact Lake Raleigh through soil erosion, sedimentation, and littering. These trails should be considered for management as a trail corridor and could eventually result in a full circuit trail around Lake Raleigh. The second consideration involves the trails on the western boundary that penetrate private land. Currently the private land owners do not see an issue with the trails entering their property but this may not always be the case. Either the trails need to be rerouted back into the boundary or an agreement must be made between the NCSU and the private land owners.

__Trailheads and Parking__

Three trailheads are proposed for Lake Raleigh Woods (Figure 3).

1. Centennial Middle School 2. Alumni Center 3. Lake Raleigh Dam

At each proposed site an information/education kiosk will be placed. The kiosks will contain: trail maps, emergency contact numbers, park regulations, and environmental education material. Also, waste bins with dog waste bags will be located near the kiosk. Parking will be limited to the Alumni Center and Centennial Middle School parking lots. No parking on the street will be permitted.

__Restrooms and Other Facilities__

No restroom or water facilities will be provided onsite. However, future development should consider water fountains and restroom facilities. An outdoor classroom facility will be located near the South entrance by Centennial Middle School. This outdoor classroom can be used by the public with priority retained for NCSU faculty, staff, and students.

__Signs__
 * __Education and Interpretation__**

1. __Information Signs__ - Signs indicating the rules and regulations for visitor use should be located at trail kiosks and within the site itself. Restoration area signs should be created for areas where visitors should no enter (e.g., research and trail regeneration areas). When specific trails have been established and named then signage should be constructed to guide visitors through the site. 2. __Educational Signs__ - Signs indicating the biodiversity and natural features of Lake Raleigh Woods should be created to educate visitors about the resource.

__Group Use__

Large public groups or events that are not related to NCSU should contact the site manager for permission to use Lake Raleigh Woods. Appropriate contact information should be listed at the trail head kiosks.

__Research__ All research endeavors, NCSU or public, should be approved through the site manager. Special permission is required for any use of the natural resources contained within the Lake Raleigh Woods site. Appropriate contact information should be listed at the trail head kiosks.



Protect Water Quality:

Recommendation for Educational Structure: The largest class size that uses Lake Raleigh Woods is 90, which means the classroom would be required to be approximately 2,000 square feet to meet capacity requirements. The sustainable classroom at Prairie Ridge in Raleigh is 800 square feet with a capacity for 50 people. This classroom cost $350,000 to build. The cost includes about $100,000 for connecting to utilities. A of similar design at lake Raleigh Woods would also, likely have to be connected to the grid. There are several reasons that a completely off-grid classroom is impractical. The first is energy. In order to provide energy for electricity and possibly heating, an off-grid building would need a photo cell panel. In a temperate area like NC, the photo cells need to be backed up by a wind turbine in the winter months. A classroom in a wooded area would require much clearing of trees for the photo panel and a tall wind turbine to clear the heights of the trees. Because the feasible building sites are in predominantly successional pine forest, positioning of the building to maximize ambient sunlight for temperature control is also not feasible. The building would, therefore, have to be heated in order to be used in the winter months. Photo cells will not likely provide enough energy for heating a 2,000 square foot building. The building would have to be connected to the electrical grid. Another problem with a completely off-grid classroom is clean water. Drinking fountains and hand washing sinks are required to have a treated potable water supply by health regulation. Self-composting toilets are not practical because they are designed for continuous use by a small amount of people. Large groups a couple of times per week with no use in between would cause them to malfunction. A rain catchment system would work for the toilets, but is not permitted for hand washing and drinking. The classroom would still need a clean water supply from the city water system. Given the energy and health department considerations, a completely off-grid classroom is impractical at Lake Raleigh Woods. Based on the preliminary use survey that sent to professors to assess their instructional needs, a full classroom is not really necessary. Most indicated that use Lake Raleigh Woods for teaching when they need an outdoor natural setting. Most (53.8%), however did indicate that they would like to see a teaching facility built at Lake Raleigh Woods. While some said they preferred running water, toilets, and electricity and Wi-Fi capability, others said that a picnic shelter was sufficient. There was also interest expressed in an equipment storage shed. With the survey results in mind, and considering the costs, a simple shelter with tables for group work and locking equipment shed are recommended rather than a full classroom facility. This type of structure would meet the instructional needs of the professors at NCSU. The main concern of the professors was having a staging/meeting area and a place to park. The shelter would be open and accessible by the public. Like the structure at the Schenk, a sign could be posted informing public users that NCSU classes when present are to be given the space. Other rules, such as proper trash disposal and keeping dogs on a leash should also be included. The tables should be designed to seat 4 to 6 students, as this is an optimal lab group size. The students could then sit with their group and work without interfering with other groups. The tables and structure itself should be made from sustainable and recycled resources where ever possible.

Survey Results:

Site Protection Plan
 * Determination of groups allowed access and when
 * How access is permitted and managed
 * On-site enforcement requirements
 * Methods to monitor the site to identify degradation
 * Approval process for research or non-allowed uses


 * 5. Workplans.**

At this point in the planning process, development of specific work plans seems premature. However, once the governing board has ascertained how it will asume or delegate responsibilities for specific initiatives, then goals for three year and annual work plans should follow.


 * //A. Three-year Workplan.//**
 * //B. Annual Workplans.//**


 * 6. Appendices.** As required and referred to from the main document. Content of appendices is governed by features and attributes of the property and plan.

> Potential items to include:
 * Legal Description, Property Plat, Deed, etc.
 * Maps
 * Natural Heritage Reports (SNHA, EO, etc.)
 * Inventories of species