Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERGLEN PUD - FINAL - 71 93B - CORRESPONDENCE - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTRecommendation 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 14. 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. 5 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. Recommended Treatment Within The Buffer (question #3) and Criteria Used for Recommendations (question #2) 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. 3 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 2 770 - M E M 0 R A N D U M- TO: Ms. Libby Glass, W. W. Reynolds Mr. Eldon Ward, Cityscape Urban Design, Inc. FROM: Dr. Delwin E. Bensonavil DATE: 23 April 1994 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