Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
compelling, and it really wasn't going to work if any one of these points were left out
(Zimmerman 2004).
The issues and constraints to successful implementation of the planning goals
were many:
•
How to stop the loss of wetlands and even try to gain back some of this habitat
•
How to turn the place from a dumping ground into a recreational asset
•
How to rehabilitate the Wash so that area residents could use it and take
pride in it
•
How to create a synergy of edges where the Park and urbanization interface
•
How to improve water quality, particularly within the realm of financial
constraints
The multiyear planning process combined innovative techniques with logical
conclusions to reach a master plan that had large public buy-in and multi-agency
support. The key elements of this planning process (Zimmerman 2004) included
public participation, inventory and analysis, programming, alternative plans, refine-
ment, and documentation.
The public participation component of the plan was early on deemed to be critical to
its success. Consequently, there was a great outreach in sending out newsletters to the
community and hosting multiple meetings and workshops, purposely going to where
the people were instead of trying to get the community to come to the planners.
Effective planning depends on good base information (chapter 4). In the case of
the Clark County Wetlands Park, the first part of the planning process was dedi-
cated and devoted to gathering and analyzing information, including information on
geology and soils, surface and subsurface hydrology, visual impacts, landownership,
infrastructure conditions, wetlands delineation, and archaeological sites, and con-
ducting a survey of most threatened species (France 2011).
At public workshops, people were actively engaged to help determine what the
appropriate and inappropriate uses for this new park would be, given the underlying
caveat that all uses had to be compatible with the environment which was going to
be restored. This was no easy task because these public meetings were attended by
everyone from the Audubon Society, who wanted to eliminate all trails, except for
maybe one, in the entire 3,200 acres; to the ATV (all-terrain vehicle) clubs, who felt
like every time a place was improved, their members got pushed further and further
away from the city; and all kinds of special interest groups in between. But in listening
to and working with these various groups, Zimmerman (2004) and colleagues were
confident that they could come up with some viable alternatives for the future park.
Three alternatives with purposely very distinct characteristics were generated
so that they could be compared and contrasted (see chapter 4 for an overview of
this process and chapter 15 for another case study). One alternative was termed
“Conservation” and was basically the Audubon Society version of a single trail fed
from a very limited number of trailheads. This alternative, therefore, had a small
amount of public access and was really about the environment. Another alternative
was termed “Recreation” and was focused on determining what types of recreation,
with the exception of active recreation locations like ballparks and soccer fields, could
Search WWH ::
Custom Search