HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD PDP - 71 93A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT.1
Recommendation 12. Install a few berms that alter the
terrain and provide elevated viewing points, with opportunities
for vegetative diversity; without obliterating the overview of
the slough/buffer complex from homes and trails at the edge of
the buffer.
Recommendation 13. Keep dogs out of buffer/slough complex
except when under control of owners along outside trails. Dogs,
could be allowed to swim in one of the detention ponds.
Recommendation 24. Install a small nature center,
interpretive gazebo, and/or interpretive observation blind at the
south end of Waterglen Park to assist visitors with making the
transition between playground recreation and nature -based
recreation. The structure should be elevated on "stilts" or
built upon a berm with views of the slough, buffer area, and
ponds which hold water.
Recommendation 15. Install an enclosed walkway extending
from the structure in #14 into the buffer for a short distance,
so visitors can view wildlife without frightening them. Less
structured and managed opportunities can be provided greater
distances away from the playground.
Recommendation 16. Manage a portion of the area nearest the
playground with a shallow pond and emergent vegetation where
children can touch nature and investigate its wonder up close.
Recommendation 17. Involve the residents in management of
the slough/buffer complex and nature interpretive areas to
increase their "ownership" of the sites and consequently their
care for the environment, facilities and equipment.
����
, .,
�/
,
;��,: ,I
f'
..;
%�'
,+�
'' ;
,;
No Text
u
No Text
No Text
I& �
l
Recommendation 5. Native trees and shrubs are important
features for aesthetics, biological diversity and ecological
buffers for sound, pollutants and people, but they are not
necessary or desirable for the waterfowl -based objectives stated
by DOW. However, a more diverse array of vegetation and wildilfe
species should be considered in urban environments. Designs for
trees and shrubs should be developed in a "curvilinear,, fashion
along the buffer area at the outside edges nearest to the houses,
managed in clumps between detention ponds, and placed in
strategic locations in association with trails and rest areas
along the outside edge of the buffer. Trails and rest areas will
be discussed briefly later. Trees should not be planted along
the slough, but they will eventually grow there unless management
practice are taken to discourage them.
The purpose of using trees and shrubs along the edges is to
add plant species creating habitat diversity and consequently
wildlife diversity. Wildlife diversity should be the primary
objective and perhaps waterfowl management should rank second.
Raptors, songbirds, tree -using mammals and insects will benefit
from the vertical diversity.
Recommendation 6. For the same purpose as in #5., native
shrubs can be planted in strategic locations on the edges of the
detention ponds nearest the slough, but should be kept to a
minimum directly associated with the slough and the associated
riparian environment.
Integrate people into the overall wetland values of the
site. Maximize overall opportunities to encounter wildlife
minimize the deleterious impacts of people by careful management
of their uses.
Recommendation 7. Do not fence wildlife out of the
subdivision or fence people out of'the wetland.
Recommendation 8. Market the housing project by clearly
stating the positive and negative attributes of wildlife, so
residents who chose to live there will know the consequences of
their decision and will not expect society to solve problems with
wildlife when they arise.
Recommendation 9. Have covenants that provide for proper
treatment of wildlife with guidance provided to residents for
dealing with nuisance individuals.
Recommendation 10. Use housing designs that do not encourage
unwanted species that could build nests in cracks, crevices and
other surfaces.
Recommendation 11. Provide opportunities and training for
residents to enjoy, appreciate and learn about nature. Create
nature trails and rest areas along the edge of the buffer to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the site. Spur trails, a
small boardwalk, and a couple of observation blinds could be
installed on the slough and detention/irrigation pond
environments at strategic locations only. Tall grass, shrubs and
wet areas will discourage use of most areas while managed
facilities will encourage organized use.
4
there currently under a crop of corn. The area is more important
for migrating and wintering waterfowl than nesting birds.
Easement distance in the applicant's plan is reported to be
approximately 150 feet.on either side of the slough (and beyond
the narrow riparian band of vegetation currently less -altered by
agriculture). The overall average width is 425 feet which
compares closely to 450 feet in the DOW plan.
The opportunity for residents to "live close to nature" in a
planned way is facilitated by the applicant's option in contrast
to the DOW plan which puts a road between people and nature.
Using roads to protect people from nature and to protect nature
from people are often the most logical management options, but in
this case the developer appears to lose housing opportunities and
income by giving up land for mitigation beyond the original value
of the slough and associated environs. Having the opportunity to
mix residential development in a close and managed way with
natural attributes of the area is the unique opportunity afforded
by this project. To separate people from nature makes the
opportunity less unique.
Another option, is for the land in question to be acquired
and managed in a natural way by governments. They could purchase
the land or purchase conservation easements for its use from the
developer.
„.
The.addition of water quality irrigation ponds and water
quality detention ponds within the buffer will benefit wildlife
and residents if the overall water regime does not reduce flows
in the slough and if water quality is maintained by the design of
those systems.
Recommendation 2. I agree with the suggestion by Division
of Wildlife that the northern -most irrigation storage pond at the
head of the slough, should be moved. It could cause major
changes in the flow if water.
Thoughtful use of vegetation is the key to attracting
wildlife and benefitting people in modified settings. If
diversity is desirable, a variety of native trees, shrubs,
flowers, and grasses should be encouraged.
Recommendation 3. The sewer easement and most land between
the slough and ponds should be planted to tall native grasses and
forbes providing cover for ground nesting birds and mammals. Do
not mow the grass, or do so only when needed to stimulate growth
of desirable plants and to encourage wildlife habitat in the
area.
Recommendation 4. Plant shorter native grasses between the
ponds and residential housing to discourage wildlife from moving
from the "wild area" into the more manicured housing areas. Mow
the edges of this grass for a distance of 1-3 feet where it meets
the border of walkways to maintain a neat and manicured look for
the area.
KA
0
Decisions Needed to Maintain The Quantity and Quality Of
Environments and the Quantity and Quality of Life In Waterglen
PUD
I have been asked to address the following three questions
for development and management of Waterglen PUD.
1. What is an appropriate and reasonable distance between the
Cooper Slough and the residential lots?
2. What are reasonable criteria for the distances selected?
3. What treatments are recommended for the management of the
buffer strip between the slough and the residential lots?
My answers are based upon perceived benefits to people, wildlife
and nature in general..
Appropriate Distances for a Buffer (#1) and Criteria Used For the
Decision (#2)
An evolution of six proposals for buffers on Cooper Slough
were shown to me which illustrate the inexact ability to
automatically set reasonable and appropriate boundaries.
Proposals were entitled: "Natural Resources Conceptual Review (7
Sept. 1993);" "Staff Comments (15 Nov. 1993);" "Division of
Wildlife Letter.(24 Nov. 1993);" "Natural Resources Letter 28?
Jan. 1994);" "Division of Wildlife (7 Feb. 1994);" and
"Applicant's Proposal (5 April 1994)." The last two proposals
appear to be the most logical and reasonable from the
perspectives of nature, developers, city, and residents. The
proposals are close in area designated as buffer and concerns
addressed about each proposal can probably be resolved to the
satisfaction of both parties. I will review both proposals
briefly then recommend my option and general management practices
that should be conducted therein.
The proposal from Division of.Wildlife (DOW) provides for a
larger open space on the west -central portion of the buffer that
can be used for ground nesting birds. Trees are discouraged
because they will attract avian predators that could be harmful
to waterfowl and other water birds which use the slough and are
an existing attribute and asset of the area.
The proposal from the applicant is virtually identical in
size except for the west -central section of the buffer that they
prefer to be in housing with larger lots that interface with the
buffer zone. The slough/buffer complex provides an attraction to
persons desiring natural amenities adjacent to their homes. This
option provides an aesthetic gain to the residents and they
should be willing to pay higher prices for the lots and homes
which adds socio-economic diversity to the area and greater
marketing/income opportunities for the developer.
Recommendation 1. I recommend that the applicant's
proposal be used as the basis for buffer demarcations because the
area in question in the DOW plan stated benefits to nesting birds
more than the concern about management of people and maintenance
of the aesthetic quality of open space. The riparian area next
to the slough and the grass area between the slough and detention
ponds should provide nesting in greater abundance than exists
2
- M E M O R A N D U M-
TO: Ms. Libby Glass, W. W. Reynolds
Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc.
FROM: Dr. Delwin E. Benson
DATE: 23 April 1994 a �v
SUBJ: Management of Cooper Slough and Resident Values at
Waterglen Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Introduction: Cooper Slough is valuable to Nature and to People
Cooper Slough should be an asset to Waterglen residents,
wildlife, the people of Fort Collins, and developers with proper
management of the riparian environment and a suitable buffer that
maintains an acceptable quantity and quality of water, wildlife
habitat and access for users. The project could become a
demonstration area to showcase how creating and integrating
nature into residential developments can be managed in ways that
benefit society.
Concern about nature is sometimes 'criticized as being the
prerogative of more affluent persons. Lower income residents
occasionally fail to understand how nature relates to the needs
in their lives or how to reap the stimulating and contemplative
benefits of nature. Examples of planned unit developments that
focus on nature are generally for upper economic classes.
Waterglen PUD is designed for lower and moderate income families
which provides a unique opportunity to plan with nature for a
wider array of social and economic groups.
The need for careful planning and development increases as
the city continues to grow and open spaces become farther afield.
Society in general and residents in Fort Collins specifically
have strong interests in the protection and enjoyment of nature,
yet nature may not be readily accessible to everyone. Nature
needs to be more accessible when one considers the needs of young
families, older citizens, or persons in transition from public
housing to owing their own homes. Youth and adults will benefit
most when nature experiences can be provided near to home.
Proper management of Cooper Slough and the adjacent buffer
strip can enhance the values for people and attributes of "wild"
or "natural" systems beyond the level that exists there currently
and perhaps beyond historical levels. The native landscape of
the property in recent geological time was likely a short -grass
prairie, without water, which was converted to agricultural land.
The source of water for the slough is reported to be seepage from
the Larimer-Weld Canal according to the report by Cottonwood
Consulting prepared in April 1994.
1