sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mudflat

1

The Evolution of the MIA DOCTO + SCOTT WALLS Jacob Bintliff, Mariana Chavez, Daniela Peña Corvillon, Artificial Wildbird Tidal Johanna Hoffman, Katelyn Walker, UC Berkeley, LA 205 Studio Mudflat in Fukuoka, Japan Spring 2012 2 PRESENTATION CONTENT

INTRODUCTION //

SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS //

WETLAND DESIGN //

HUMAN INTERFACE //

CONCLUSIONS 3 CONTEXT 4 5 6 CONTEXT

BEFORE PRESENT 7

ISLAND CITY 8 9 ITERATIONS

ORIGINAL PLAN 10 ITERATIONS

JAPAN STUDENT WORKSHOP 11 ITERATIONS

2008 Land Use Plan

~8.5 - 9 ha ~12 ha ~10 ha ~10

~7 ha Setup of the central area ~8.75 ha ~38.25 ha We will establish a lively ~7 ha interactive space by inviting urban functions such as commercial and ~ 6.75 ha corporate functions, and dissemination of information on education, ~2.25 ha Wild Bird Park 3.9 ha 3.1 ha School and Amenities culture, and art. Further, public transportation Green Space facilities and facilities for 4.1 ha convenience are invited Assigned Facilities Teriha Town to improve the business Hospital ~18 ha environment in the area. Apartments 4.1+ ha

Joint Independent Houses Spcialist Clinic 1.8 ha ~1.5 ha Commercial Elderly Elderly Center? Center Planned Subdivision 1.6 ha 1.2 ha Coporate (Sold) 0.9 ha Planned Use/Mixed Use Idustrial and hatches based on legend color code and denote use type Research & Development Currently Built Port

Warf

1000 m UC BERKELEY LAND USE PLAN 12 ITERATIONS

UC BERKELEY LAND USE PLAN 13 ITERATIONS

16 Hectare Wild Bird Park

UC BERKELEY - JAPAN WETLAND DESIGN 14 DESIGN GOALS

Provide natural for migrating bird species with minimal maintenance required

Create vibrant center for environmental education, outdoor recreation and commercial activity

Turn City into an international birdwatching destination

Establish Island City as beacon of ecological innovation INTRODUCTION 15 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Tidal Dynamics Human Engagement WILD BIRD PARK

Habitat INTRODUCTION 16 PREVAILING WINDS & TIDAL CURRENTS

Prevailing Wind

Current Velocity

SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS (Furusho, 2001) 17 IN HAKATA

MHHW 2.16m SEMI-DIURNAL TIDAL CYCLE Two High Tides and Two Low Tides Per Day

1.1m MTL

0.7m MLLW

0 hrs 24 hrs

MHHW = Mean Higher High Water, or Average Highest Elevation

MTL = Mean Tide Level

MLLW = Mean Lower Low Water, or Average Lowest Tide Elevation

SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS Source: Port of Hakata, 2012 18 BATHYMETRY

Bathymetry Elevation (from MTL) 1.5 - 2 1 - 1.5 0.5 - 1 0 - 0.5 -0.5 - 0 -1 - -0.5 -1.5 - -1 -2 - -1.5 WAJIRO MUDFLATS -2.5 - -2 LOW TIDE EXTENT -3 - -2.5 1 -3.2 - -3 0.3 0 2.4 1.1 2.1 2.6 1.2 1.5 LOW TIDE EXTENT 1.2 1 2.6 2.4 1.6 2.1 1.8 2.7 0.7 1.8 2.6 2.3 2.9 0.9 2.7

1.7 2 2.7 2.6 1.4 2.9 1.7 3 0.9 2.2 2.9 2.9 3.1

1.4 3 1

2.5 3.2 ISLAND CITY 0.2 1.2 2.9 0.6

1.4 2.7 0.2 2.8 DEPTH SOUNDINGS = METERS BELOW LOW TIDE 0 0.25 0.5 1 Kilometers SOURCE: BATHYMETRY ADOPTED FROM NGA Chart 97421, Fukuoka Wan, 1996 1.8 2.7 3.2 SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS 19 BATHYMETRY

A

1

SECTION A-B 0.3 0 2.4 1.1 2.1 2.6 1.2 1.5

1.2 1 2.6 2.4 1.6 2.1 1.8 2.7 0.7 1.8 2.6 2.3 2.9 0.9 2.7

1.7 2 2.7 2.6 1.4 2.9 1.7 3 0.9 2.2 2.9 2.9 3.1

1.4 3 1

2.5 3.2 0.2 B 1.2 2.9 0.6

1.4 2.7 0.2 2.8

1.8 2.7 3.2

A SECTION A-B B MHHW (2.16m) TOP OF SEAWALL = 3m CONCRETE SEAWALL

MTL (1.1m)

MLLW (0.07m)

BASE OF SEAWALL = -3m

DEPTH SOUNDINGS = METERS BELOW LOW TIDE SOURCE: BATHYMETRY ADOPTED FROM NGA Chart 97421, Fukuoka Wan, 1996, Port of Fukuoka 0 0.25 0.5 1 Kilometers SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS 20 GEOMORPHIC PROCESSES RESPONSIBLE FOR SEDIMENTATION RATES

Sediment Deposition Incoming Tide

Tidal Prism High Tide

Re- Suspension Low Tide

Tidal Ebb + Flow

Wind Driven Waves

Take Home : Increasing tidal prism increases sediment deposition, naturally preventing wetland erosion. Tidal prism can be increased by widening/ enlarging a single opening. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS 21 EVOLUTION MODEL

TARGET FORAGING HABITAT

Take Home: The more wave energy a tidal wetland is exposed to, the more tidal mudflat will be sustained.

SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS (Williams, 2001) 22 RED TIDE

N N N N O2 N

O2 N O2 O2

O2

Take Home : Design for Wild Bird Park attempts to minimize Red Tide by maximizing tidal exchange. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS 23 BIRD GEOMETRIES BIRD

OPEN SPACE FOR RAPID PREDATOR ESCAPE

OPEN VIEW FOR EARLY PREDATOR DISCOVERY

High Tide Mean Tide Low Tide

GRAVEL GRASSY TIDAL TIDAL MUDFLAT SUBTIDAL / DEEP LEVEE TOP UPLAND MARSH WATER

Snowy Plover Year-round Feeding Roosting Nesting Dunlin Year-round

Grey Heron Year-round

Black-faced 100m scare distance from humans Spoonbill 200m scare distance from humans Winter Visitor

Saunder’s Gull Winter Visitor

Mudflats in Hakata Bay also provide habitat for the Common Shelduck, Eurasian Curlew, Great Knot, Common Greenshank, Red-necked Stint, Common Ringed Plover, Little Stint and may others. The Wild Bird Park will also attract these species and birdwatching tourists who come to see them. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS 24 DESIGN PROCESS

Choose Evaluate Evaluate Design Physical Available Options Structure Habitat Stability

BIRD HABITATS

OPEN SPACE FOR RAPID PREDATOR ESCAPE

OPEN VIEW FOR EARLY PREDATOR DISCOVERY

Our design suitability process...... High Tide Mean Tide Low Tide WETLAND DESIGN

GRAVEL GRASSY TIDAL TIDAL MUDFLAT SUBTIDAL / DEEP LEVEE TOP UPLAND MARSH WATER

Snowy Plover Year-round Feeding Roosting Nesting Dunlin Year-round

TuftedGrey Heron Duck WinterYear-round Visitor

Black-faced 100m scare distance from humans Spoonbill 200m scare distance from humans Winter Visitor

Saunder’s Gull Winter Visitor 25 DESIGN PROCESS

TIDE GATE? OPEN SYSTEM 26 DESIGN PROCESS

TIDE GATE? OPEN SYSTEM

TO ALLOW NATURAL PROCESSES TO FORM HABITAT AND MINIMIZE MAINTENANCE NEEDS 27 DESIGN PROCESS

1 OPENING? OR 2?

Upland

Tidal Marsh

Tidal at

Subtidal 28 DESIGN PROCESS

1 OPENING? OR 2?

Upland

Tidal Marsh

Tidal Mud at

Subtidal

1 OPENING TO MAXIMIZE TIDAL PRISM AND NATURAL PROCESSES 29 WETLAND DESIGN: Initial Alternatives

Upland Upland Tidal Marsh Tidal Marsh Tidal Mudflat Tidal Mudflat Subtidal Subtidal Closed Alternatives Ecological Zones

Upland

Tidal Marsh Upland Tidal Mud atUpland Tidal Marsh Subtidal Tidal Marsh Tidal Mudflat Tidal Mudflat Subtidal Subtidal Open Alternatives Ecological Zones WETLAND DESIGN 30 Closed Alternatives Ecological Zones Habitat spaces

Upland Tidal Marsh Tidal Mudflat Spoonbill Roosting Spoonbill Feeding Subtidal Dunlin Roosting Dunlin Feeding, Plover Feeding and Roosting Benefits Concerns Benefits Concerns Better sediment retention Smaller mudflat area Large spoonbill roosting Limited feeding Reduced tidal mixing

Upland Tidal Marsh Spoonbill Roosting Tidal Mudflat Spoonbill Feeding Subtidal Dunlin Roosting Dunlin Feeding, Plover Feeding and Roosting Benefits Concerns Benefits Concerns Better sediment retention Smaller mudflat area Variety of bird habitats Limited feeding Reduced tidal mixing WETLAND DESIGN 31 Open Alternatives Ecological Zones Habitat spaces

Upland Upland Tidal Marsh Tidal Marsh Tidal Mud atTidal Mudflat Subtidal Subtidal Dunlin Roosting Spoonbill Feeding Dunlin Feeding, Plover Feeding and Roosting Benefits Concerns Benefits Concerns Large mudflat area Potential sediment loss Large spoonbill feeding Limited roosting Tidal Mixing

Upland Spoonbill Feeding Tidal Marsh Dunlin Feeding, Plover Tidal Mudflat Feeding and Roosting Subtidal

Benefits Concerns Benefits Concerns Large mudflat area Potential sediment loss Large spoonbill feeding No roosting Tidal Mixing WETLAND DESIGN 32 Initial Alternatives Key Points

Upland

Tidal Marsh

Tidal Mud at

Subtidal

Open Conditions Closed Conditions Larger mudflat area Smaller mudflat area More tidal water mixing Less tidal water mixing Upland area near people Upland area away from people Larger potential sediment loss Smaller potential sediment loss

Optimal Conditions Large mudflat area Small potential sediment loss Lots of tidal water mixing Upland area away from people WETLAND DESIGN 33 ANALOG PROJECT: Johnson’s Landing - Hayward, CA

BERKELEY

SAN FRANCISCO SAN BAY FRANCISCO JOHNSON’S SAN MATEO LANDING BRIDGE

92

PACIFIC OCEAN WETLAND DESIGN 34 ANALOG PROJECT: Johnson’s Landing - Hayward, CA

• LEVEE’S BREACHED IN 1980

• ONE OF FIRST LEVEE BREACH RESTORATION PROJECTS IN SF BAY NORTH BREACH • LARGER OPENINGS THAN CONTEMPORARY SALT 16-HECTARE MARSH 250 m ISLAND CITY WILD BIRD PARK FOR SCALE • PROJECTS FOCUSED ON COMPARISON VEGETATED TIDAL MARSH AS OPPOSED TO TIDAL MUDFLAT

• NO SIGNIFICANT FRESHWATER INPUT (SOME SOUTH BREACH STORM DRAIN INPUT) 100 m

• SIMILAR “PERCHED” BREACH

• SIMILAR TIDAL RANGE TO HAKATA BAY WETLAND DESIGN 21 TIDAL MARSH EVOLUTION MODEL

TARGET FORAGING HABITAT

Take Home: The more wave energy a tidal wetland is exposed to, the more tidal mudflat will be sustained.

SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS (Williams, 2001) 35 ANALOG PROJECT: Johnson’s Landing - Hayward, CA

VEGETATED TIDAL MARSH

INTERTIDAL PREVAILING 250 m MUDFLAT WIND / WAVE DIRECTION

100 m WETLAND DESIGN 36 ANALOG PROJECT: Johnson’s Landing - Hayward, CA

ORO LOMA MARSH JOHNSON’S LANDING SMALL BREACH EXAMPLE (JUST NORTH OF JOHNSON’S LANDING)

PREVAILING WIND / WAVE DIRECTION 20 m

SMALL BREACH MINIMIZES WAVE ENERGY, LIMITS MUDFLAT HABITAT WETLAND DESIGN 37 ANALOG PROJECT: Johnson’s Landing - Hayward, CA

10 HECTARES OF MUDFLAT ARE VEGETATED TIDAL MARSH SUSTAINED AT THE NORTH BREACH SITE

NORTH BREACH

INTERTIDAL MUDFLAT 250 m

BREACHED LEVEE REMNANTS WETLAND DESIGN 38 ANALOG PROJECT: Johnson’s Landing - Hayward, CA

VEGETATED 2 HECTARES TIDAL MARSH OF MUDFLAT ARE SUSTAINED AT THE SOUTH BREACH. SOUTH BREACH INTERTIDAL 100 m MUDFLAT THE SMALLER BREACH RESULTED IN FAR LESS SUSTAINED MUDFLAT 23 HECTARES (2 HECTARES MUDFLAT) WETLAND DESIGN 39 COMPARISON JOHNSON’S LANDING ISLAND CITY

21 km prevailing1.3 wind, km prevailing wind - 8 knots average 7 knots avg.

WIND DIRECTION WIND DIRECTION 7 knots Ag v . Wind Speed 8 knots Wind Fetch = Distance of water over which wind travels LARGER FETCH = LARGE WAVES TAKE HOME: There will be less wave energy at Island City than Johnson’s Landing. A large breach will be required to maintain significant mudflat. WETLAND DESIGN 40 DESIGN CONCLUSIONS

Through analysis of data, site conditions, expert opinion, and comparison with Johnnson’s landing, we concluded that a single breach of 200 meters oriented towards prevailing wind and wave direction would be the best design approach.

Doing so maximizes tidal prism and ensures sufficient exposure to wave energy to provide target foraging habitat while protecting against tidal scour. WETLAND DESIGN 41 DESIGN CONCLUSIONS 42 DESIGN CONCLUSIONS 43 WETLAND GRADING PLAN

200m

3m existing concrete levee 0m subtidal levee

Mean TideMHHW

MLLW 3.5m

3m 3.5m 2.5m 2m 1.5m

1m

0.5m

1m 1.5m 2m Upland (6.5 HA) 2.5m Tidal Marsh (3 HA) 3m 3.5m Tidal Mudflat (6 HA) Total grading volume: Subtidal (0.5 HA) 4m earthen levee 360,000 m3 below an 0.5m contours assumed elevation of 4m. 100m WETLAND DESIGN 44 LEVEE BREACH DETAILS A A’

200M BREACH ORIENTED TOWARDS PREVAILING WINDS

LARGE OPENING TO ALLOW WAVE ENERGY TO SUSTAIN MUDFLAT FORAGING HABITAT

SINGLE BREACH MAXIMIZES TIDAL PRISM

A A’ WETLAND DESIGN 45 LEVEE BREACH DETAILS Existing Concrete Seawall A 200 m 3 m

LOWER EXISTING A’ A SEAWALL 3 m (Top of Seawall)

MTL2H:1V (1.1m)

1.1m (MTL) 0.5MLLW m (0.07m) MLLW 0.07 m

NOT TO SCALE -3 m A’ A A’

INTERTIDAL MUDFLAT VEGETATED MARSH UPLAND 4m Lower Existing 20 H: 1V Concrete Seawall

30 H : 1 V 1.1 m (MTL) 200 H : 1 V MLLW

- 3 m

NOT TO SCALE WETLAND DESIGN Existing Concrete Seawall 200 m 46 LEVEE BREACH DETAILS A 3 m (Top of Seawall) A A’ WETLAND2H:1V HABITAT PROVIDE INCREASED PROTECTION 1.1m (MTL) FROM WAVE0.5 m ENERGY AND TSUNAMI, AND PLANS FOR SEAMLLW LEVEL 0.07 m RISE NOT TO SCALE A’ A A’

ADDITONAL PROTECTION FROM & TSUNAMI 4m Lower Existing 20 H: 1V Concrete Seawall HEIGHT OF EXISTING PROTECTION 30 H : 1 V 1.1 m (MTL) 200 H : 1 V MLLW

- 3 m

NOT TO SCALE 47 WETLAND PLAN: Tide Levels and Bird Use

Mean Lower Low Water Mean Tide Level Mean Higher High Water

200m 0m subtidal levee

3m existing concrete levee MLLW

Mudflat provides 6 hectares Mean Tide Mean feeding habitat. Dunlins, Plovers, MHHW Grassy high ground provides and Gulls feed above tide line. refuge for birds during high

3.5m tides. Dunlins will nest in this Spoonbills and Herons feed in 3m 2.5m 2m area. Plovers will nest on gravel 1.5m shallow water. Upland 1m 3.5m maintenance road on top of levee. Tidal Marsh 0.5m Tidal Mudflat Subtidal 0.5m contours 1m 1.5m 2m Tidal marsh extending to 2.5m 3m 100m levee wall helps deter human Gradual slope up to human 3.5m areas creates a natural tidal 4m earthen levee access onto bird refuge area. edge, allows for mudflat to climb with sea level rise. WETLAND DESIGN 48 WETLAND PLAN - Bird Geometries

200m scare distance

100m scare distance

Spoonbill Roosting Spoonbill Feeding Dunlin Roosting Grey Heron Feeding Dunlin Feeding, Plover and Gull Feeding and Roosting

100m WETLAND DESIGN 49 EAST-WEST SECTION - Habitats and Bird Geometries

200m

3m existing concrete levee 0m subtidal levee A

Mean TideMHHW

MLLW 3.5m

3m 3.5m 2.5m 2m e 1.5m e 1m nc A’ nc sta di sta 0.5m e di e ar ar 1m sc 1.5m sc Upland 2m m 2.5m m Tidal Marsh 3m 00 3.5m 2 00 Tidal Mudflat 1 Subtidal 4m earthen levee

0.5m contours

100m

A A’ Island City Hakata Bay

Snowy Plover Year-round Grassy Upland Tidal Marsh Dunlin Year-round Tidal Mudflat Subtidal Grey Heron Year-round

Black-faced Feeding Spoonbill Winter Visitor Roosting Nesting

Saunder’s Gull Winter Visitor

100m WETLAND DESIGN 50 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION - Habitats and Bird Geometries

A

200m

3m existing concrete levee 0m subtidal levee

Mean TideMHHW

MLLW 3.5m

3m 3.5m 2.5m 2m e e 1.5m c c 1m an an

0.5m dist dist

1m 1.5m Upland 2m m scare m scare 2.5m 0 0 Tidal Marsh 3m 0 0 Tidal Mudflat 3.5m 2 1 Subtidal 4m earthen levee

0.5m contours 100m A’ A A’ Island City Hakata Bay

Snowy Plover Grassy Upland Year-round Tidal Marsh Tidal Mudflat Dunlin Subtidal Year-round

Grey Heron Year-round Feeding Roosting Black-faced Spoonbill Nesting Winter Visitor

Saunder’s Gull Winter Visitor 100m WETLAND DESIGN 51 DESIGN CAVEATS • Primary objectives of design are to incorporate natural processes in an artificial location • Design is intended to be self-sustaining, but additional maintainance due to the new nature of this type of wetland design.

• Vegetation maintenance may be required if unwanted vegetation types or species (e.g. trees, invasives) establish in the high tide retreat area. WETLAND DESIGN 52 HUMAN INTERFACE DESIGN Island City’s Wild Bird Park anchors a vibrant zone of recreation, commerce, residences, and environmental education. The Wild Bird Park Tower is a focal point for the island, offering stunning views of natural bird habitat, Hakata Bay, and the mountains beyond. Land use Dense Residential Medium Residential Mixed-Use Greenway/Recreation Research/Mixed-Use Industrial/Port Port HUMAN INTERFACE 53 MASTER PLAN

Biotopes

Hike/Bike Trail

Educational center Bird Park Parking

View Tower Bird Park pick-up/drop-off Community Center 200m Wetland habitat (16 ha) 3m existing concrete levee 0m subtidal levee

Linear Rain Garden Mean TideMHHW MLLW 3.5m

3m 3.5m 2.5m 2m 1.5m

1m Mixed use

0.5m

Duck Wetland protection fence 1m 1.5m Picnic viewpoints Upland 2m 2.5m Hike/Bike Tidal Marsh 3m Tidal Mudflat 3.5m Residential Subtidal 4m earthen levee

0.5m contours

100m Greenbelt to Hike/Bike Trail

HUMAN INTERFACE Central Park 54 Biotopes 200m 3m existing concrete levee 0m subtidal levee Plan Bay View

Mean TideMHHW

MLLW 3.5m Contemplation

3m 3.5m 2.5m Parking Wetland View 2m 1.5m

1m Shrinking Habitat

A’

0.5m Fishing Flats

VISITOR CENTER VISITOR Wetland View

1m Foodweb Tightropes 1.5m Upland 2m 2.5m Tidal MarshA 3m Parking Tidal Mudflat 3.5m Model Mudflat Subtidal 4m earthen levee

0.5m contours

100m Global Context Traffic CENTER VISITOR Pick-up/Drop-off

Section A A’ HUMAN INTERFACE Bay View

Contemplation

Parking Wetland View

Shrinking Habitat

Bay View

Fishing Flats

55 CENTER VISITOR Wetland View Biotopes Contemplation Foodweb Tightropes Parking Wetland View

Parking Interactive, entertainingShrinking Habitat educational experience. Model Mudflat DesignedBay View to complement more formal exhibits in the visitor center.

Fishing Flats

Global Context VISITOR CENTER VISITOR VISITOR CENTER VISITOR BiotopeWetland View 1: HAKATA BAY IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT • ContemplationMap on ground shows migratory bird routes. Foodweb Tightropes Parking Wetland View

Parking BiotopeShrinking Habitat 2: MODEL TIDAL MUDFLAT AND WETLAND • ScaleModel model Mudflat of a tidal mudflat and wetland, artificial tide action demonstrates high Bay View tides every 10 minutes. Fishing Flats

VISITOR CENTER VISITOR Wetland View Global Context VISITOR CENTER VISITOR BiotopeContemplation 3: HAKATA BAY TIGHTROPES • Walk the tightropes and understand how every species in the bay is interconnected Parking FoodwebWetland Tightropes View

Parking Shrinking Habitat

Bay View BiotopeModel Mudflat 4: EAT LIKE A SPOONBILL • Visitors provided with Spoonbill “beaks” that fit over hands, for fake shrimp in a series ofFishing mudflats. Flats

VISITOR CENTER VISITOR Wetland View GlobalContemplation Context VISITOR CENTER VISITOR

Parking Wetland ViewBiotopeFoodweb 5:Tightropes SHRINKING MUDFLATS • As visitors walk through, a city will gradually encroach on mudflat walking area Parking Shrinkinguntil Habitat there is nothing left. Bay View • Light-up map shows and historic mudflats. Model Mudflat

BiotopeFishing Flats 6: WHAT YOU CAN DO • ContemplativeContemplation area with signage suggesting what citizens can do to help wild birds. VISITOR CENTER VISITOR Wetland View Global Context VISITOR CENTER VISITOR

Parking Wetland View

HUMAN INTERFACE Foodweb Tightropes

Shrinking Habitat

Parking

Model Mudflat Fishing Flats

VISITOR CENTER VISITOR Wetland View

Global Context VISITOR CENTER VISITOR Foodweb Tightropes

Parking

Model Mudflat

Global Context VISITOR CENTER VISITOR 56 Biotopes

Foodweb Tightropes

Feeding Flats HUMAN INTERFACE 57 Educational Center and Biotopes

View Tower Cafe Seating Biotope Area HUMAN INTERFACE 58 CONCLUSIONS

Wetland designed to maximize natural processes for minimal human intervention.

Tidal Marsh Dynamics

A range of tidal mudflat, tidal marsh, and upland areas provide habitat for a variety of wild bird species.

Habitat

Human interface elements are designed to maximize environmental education opportunities, as well as passive and active recreation activies.

Human Engagement CONCLUSIONS 59

Thank You!

Special acknowledgements to:

NSA, NTU, Randy Hester, Marcia McNally, Phil Williams, Derek Schubert, Fiona Cundy, Yoonju Chang, SAVE International, Matt Kondolf, Kelly Janes, Kenjiro Kito, Port of Fukuoka, Darryl Jones, Hisashi Shibata, Matsumoto

Island City Wild Bird Park 60