ESLARP : Urban Floodplain Land Resource Evaluation

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ALTERNATIVE LAND USES FOR URBAN FLOODPLAIN AREAS

ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION

The following information looks at potential impacts of the three alternative land uses (urban housing, athletic facility, flood control open space) on ecological resources in the Edgemont neighborhood of the East St. Louis area.

EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED OPEN PARK ON ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES

PLANT COMMUNITIES

The selected site for the recreational park in Edgemont is vacant and there have been proposals for its conversion into a housing complex. The details of this are discussed in previous studies. If it is converted into a housing complex, it would restrict plant habitats to a more urban setting and only those capable of the surviving urban stress would be eventually retained. Also, the plant communities would be restricted to more appealing and popular ornamental forms, and would not allow/ permit all levels of plant communities to be sustained in the environment. However, if it is proposed to be retained as a "green space", the possibility of the plant communities being affected would be minimal as a park or natural area. It has been determined that there are no threatened or endangered plant communities in this area. Moreover, if the area is retained as a park, it would not only encourage more plants to grow, but would be protected from removal in a planned environment. There would be more concern for naturalized vegetation as it would be an integral part of the overall framework and aesthetics of the park. A park will encourage biodiversity to the vegetation and wildlife available in the green spaces of the community.

ANIMAL COMMUNITIES

Plants and animals revitalize one anothers' survival needs and hence support each other. The creation of a park will hopefully encourage more wildlife to inhabit these areas. The presence of an urban setting limits the available habitats for both plants and animals, and creates fewer territories more conducive for wildlife. Even though they might not represent a wildlife population of a National Park or a State Park , a recreational park or flood zone would definitely be more diverse compared to one that is supported in an urban setting. If one takes into consideration the impacts of the housing project on the present wildlife population, it might appear to be minimal, but in contrast, a park would cause a significant increase in wildlife population numbers.

RIPARIAN ZONES
Typical riparian edge cross section	The plants and animals that inhabit an edge along a water body are significantly different from other wildlife areas. The placement of a water body setting significantly effects the plant and animal populations. For example, a pond placed in the amidst housing would have more open space around it. Thus the amount of sunlight reaching the bottom of the pond would restrict the plant and animal communities which would otherwise grow in only a specific amount of sunlight.
Typical riparian edge conditions	The concerns of the inhabitants of the housing division would limit the depth of the pond which would also restrict the plant and animal communities to live within that zone. On the other hand, if the setting for the same pond is within a park or designated floodzone, there would be a greater chance that the area around it will be designed and maintained in such a way that there would be a smoother transition in the available habitats for both plants and animals. This would mean more trees and shrubs around its edges, which would inturn affect the quality and quantity of light filtering into the pond bottom. Thus, a pond / water body with the park setting or flood zone would enhance the availablity of habitats for both plant and animal communities.

EDGES

The area is presently set amidst housing, and is quite close to the Frank Holten State Park and the Horseshoe Lake Recreation Area. The only other open area is a small one about 2 blocks away from this site. The conversion of this area into a park would definitely create a linear corridor linking both the Holten State Park and the Horseshoe Lake Area together. Also, there is the St. Philip School about 4 blocks South of this area. The park would not only provide a larger green area for the community surrounding it, but also encourage the students of the nearby school to learn more about nature. This would give them an initiative to visit the park a little more and eventually increase use of the Holten State Park and the Horseshoe Lake Park. The alternative proposed land ues of a housing project would connect the housing areas around it together, This connection would create a barrier that would close off all immediate links to the other parks.

SNAGS

The retention of a dead tree in a reasonably well maintained park would be quite low, since that would affect the aesthetics of that area of the park. The same would happen in a housing area. Thus the chances of availability of habitats for animals which live in such areas in either of the settings would be restricted. However for a minimally maintained floodzone area, snags would be allowed to remain, creating a suitable habitat for those animals that prefer a snag for a home.

COVER AND FOOD

The vegetation in the park would definitely provide sufficient cover which would act as a protective blanket for plants and animals living in it. The park would give more shelter to "lower order plants" like algae and mosses which would inturn support a slightly higher order of vegetation, and the cycle would continue on to start supporting lower animal forms like ants and beetles which would support small birds and small mammals. These would inturn support larger birds and large mammals and the food chain cycle would continue. All this would be consequence to the habitat cover that is made available by the park environment. In contrast, the housing project would primarily restrict the habitats available for plant and animal communities, thus limiting the plant and animal population.

AREA

The selected area is sufficently large enough (approx.30 acres) to support a sizable population of flora and fauna. It would not be as large as the other nearby parks around it, but will be greater than what would be supported by a housing project. However, due to the proximity of this proposed land use, recreation / flood zone area, it would become a corridor connecting the other two parts. The housing project would be covered with homes thereby using up most of the available area for wild life habitats.

CONNECTIONS TO THE OTHER AREAS

The proposed area will definitely provide links to the neighboring natural areas. The park would be a combination of being an open space for the community and at the same time become an intermediate stage from an urban setting to a more natural one. It would provide areas for active learning to the members of the community and thus itself link up with the users. A housing project on the other hand would just become a part of the rest of the housing area, without creating a significant parcel of land usable for wildlife habitats.

BARRIERS

The proposed recreation park/ floodzone areas would in no way separate the community within itself but infact form a point of interaction for all members of its commmunity setting. A housing project would provide little or no means of connection through it, and thus would "fill up" the available habitat space with more homes becoming one entire housing. This would hinder the connection of the surrounding wildlife communities.