Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLDS TEMPLE - PDP - PDP120029 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - REVISIONSADDENDUM Ecological Characterization Report LDS Property Larimer County, Colorado prepared for: Landmark Engineering Ltd. 3521 W. Eisenhower Blvd., Loveland, Colorado 80537 & John Stoddard Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 50 East North Temple Street, 10th Floor, Salt Lake City, UT 84150 prepared by: Western Ecological Resource, Inc. 711 Walnut Street, Boulder, Colorado 80302 & Landscape, Resource, Ecosystem Planning Inc. PO Box 5, Allenspark, CO 80501 January 2013 Table of Contents Section / Title Page 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Comment 2 ............................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Comment 4 ............................................................................................................................ 1 4.0 Comment 7 ............................................................................................................................ 2 4.1 Lighting Specifications ........................................................................................................ 2 4.2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 2 4.2.1 Potential Avian Impacts ................................................................................................ 2 4.2.2 Lighting Standards ........................................................................................................ 2 4.3 Impact Assessment .............................................................................................................. 3 4.3.1 Habitat Profile .............................................................................................................. 3 4.3.2 Land Use Context ......................................................................................................... 3 4.4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 3 5.0 Literature Sources ................................................................................................................... 5 1 1.0 Introduction This addendum responds to City of Fort Collins Environmental Planning Department review of the October 2012 Environmental Characterization Report on the proposed development on the LDS property located southeast of the junction of East Trilby and South Timberline Roads near Fort Collins in Larimer County, Colorado. Specifically, we are responding to comments as provided in the City of Fort Collins letter of December 7, 2012 to Ken Merritt of Landmark Engineering Ltd. Comments 2, 4 and 7 are addressed below. Comment 1 is a statement of fact, Comment 3 will be addressed by other consultants, and Comments 5 and 6 will be addressed for the Final Development Plan. 2.0 Comment 2 Comment: Is there groundwater data to support the selection of the bioswale/water quality wetland mitigation. Staff suggests installing piezometers to measure the groundwater prior to finalizing the mitigation. However, during the discussion at the staff review, it was indicated that the wetlands will largely be supported by stormwater runoff from the site and not groundwater. Response: The bioswale/water quality wetland mitigation to be located in the northeast corner of the property would be sustained by stormwater runoff from the developed area to the west. Similarly, the mitigations in and around the detention pond proposed for the southwest corner would be sustained by stormwater runoff. The northeast mitigation has a drainage area of about 18 acres and would receive 35.00 cubic feet of water per second (cfs) from the 10 year storm event and 89.42 cfs from the 100 year storm event. The southwest detention pond would have a drainage area of about four acres and receive 9.18 cfs during the 10 year event and 23.42 cfs during the 100 year event. The wetland area of the northeast mitigation site would have a clay (bentomat) liner which would result in the ponding of water for short periods of time between storm events. Furthermore, the weir of the pond would be designed to temporarily flood the tall grass prairie area for short periods of time. The surrounding short grass prairie would be sustained by natural precipitation events. The stormwater runoff generates a sufficient volume of water to sustain the mitigations proposed. 3.0 Comment 4 Comment: Implement the recommendation of page 7 of the Environmental Characterization Report regarding the raptor nest. Specifically, visit the site in mid-February and again the last week of April to determine if the nest is occupied and by what species of raptor. If raptors are in found during the pre-construction surveys, then a temporary limits of development shall be applied in accordance with Section 3.4.1(N)(5) of the Land Use Code. Response: As noted in the Environmental Characterization Report, a raptor nest is located in a tree along South Timberline Road. However, it is not known if the nest is seasonally occupied. The first phase of the project requires the widening of South Timberline Road, and the tree with the raptor nest must be removed for the road widening. Mike Figgs, a raptor biologist, will work with Colorado Parks & Wildlife and the City to get approvals to remove the nest before the nesting season, and thus allow for the timely widening of the road. 2 4.0 Comment 7 Comment: The lights of the temple’s tower could or could not affect the area’s bird populations. Response: In order to conduct an impact assessment of the potential effect of light on bird populations, first it was necessary to review the applicant's specifications for the temple lighting. Second, since this is an issue that is not typically reviewed for local land use projects, an online literature review was conducted to identify potential adverse impacts and identify useful wildlife standards for impact mitigation. The impact assessment was completed by analyzing the ecological setting and land use context of the proposed project with the lighting details and results of the literature review. 4.1 Lighting Specifications The applicant proposes to light the temple tower as described in the submittal documents. In particular, 4 (four) 26 watt LED lights with an illuminance level of approximately 12 foot/candles (fc) will be used to illuminate the temple spire. The beam spread from each light is to be confined to 9 degrees and confined to the temple spire, and light is not to be widely broadcast over a large area. The lights are positioned a maximum of 37' 8" from the statue to be lighted on the spire. The base of the lighted statue on the spire is approximately 104' above ground level, with the statue adding another 8' of height. 4.2 Literature Review 4.2.1 Potential Avian Impacts The reviewed literature generally groups potential impacts into two categories: 1) migrant birds, and 2) resident birds. In the case of migrant birds, concerns are focused on night lighting interfering with the ability of birds to navigate, which is generally thought to be done by stars and magnetic fields.1 Light pollution from urban areas or exceptionally strong point sources (coastal lighthouses, offshore oil and gas platforms) can disorient migrating birds due to the birds not being able to see stars, or electrical emissions interfering with magnetic readings. When migrating birds become disoriented, they tend to fly towards the light sources and strike the structures, or strike each other, or at a minimum waste significant amounts of energy during a stressful period in their life cycle. The problem is particularly acute during times of inclement weather and fog when "sky glow" and "light maze" are at fullest development. Most mortality events are documented in urban areas with skyscrapers or lighted radio towers, and are most severe along major flyways where there are large bodies of water, such as large cities along ocean coasts and the Great Lakes area (Longcore and Travis 2004 and 2007, Jones and Francis 2003). Most tower collisions occur at towers that are over 300' tall and secured with guy wires (Kerlinger and Curry 2009, Erickson et al. 2005, US Fish & Wildlife Service 2012). This would be expected as most migrant birds fly at heights in excess of 500' above ground level (Longcore and Travis 2004). In the case of resident birds, concerns are focused on the ability of night lighting to disrupt the inner biological clock of individual birds, generally controlled by hormonal activity, and thus change behavioral patterns, particularly breeding cycles. Research has shown, for example, that in strongly lighted areas males will sing earlier in the day, mating will take place and females will lay eggs earlier in the breeding season (Miller 2006, Kampenaers et al. 2010). Research has not shown whether these changes result in significant adverse impacts. 4.2.2 Lighting Standards Lighting standards to protect wildlife are almost entirely of a general nature, without detailed, specific standards such as recommended amounts of illumination. A summary of standards gleaned from the literature is listed below (see Longcore and Rich 2007 and 2010). 1 Many migrant songbirds and shorebirds migrate at night when the air is calm and predators are largely inactive. 3  Eliminate all bare bulbs and any lighting pointing upward.  All new developments should use the latest management technologies so that continued growth and expansion leads to no increase in the impact of light pollution.  Use only the minimum amount of light needed for safety. Users should only install lights as bright as needed for a particular situation because the influence of a light correlates with its intensity.  Use narrow spectrum bulbs as often as possible to lower the range of species affected by lighting.  Shield, canter or cut lighting to ensure that light reaches only areas needing illumination. This will significantly reduce sky glow.  Limit the duration the lights are used. Not every light needs to be on from dusk to dawn. Lighting can be minimized by setting the fixture to turn off after a certain hour. The most notable exception to these recommendations is that the temple spire lighting is pointing upward, as there does not appear to be any other practical method of lighting this feature. In compensation, lighting is limited to illuminating the spire and confined to a narrow beam at a relatively low level of illuminance. 4.3 Impact Assessment 4.3.1 Habitat Profile The project site is vegetated primarily with alfalfa and smooth brome, with some ornamental tree plantings, and three residences. There is no exceptional migratory bird habitat present, such as riparian woodland with extensive wetlands that would attract concentrations of migrants. Extensive migratory bird habitat is located approximately one-half mile to the southeast, south and southwest of the project site at Fossil Creek Reservoir and the wetlands upstream of the reservoir. One-half mile represents a fairly substantial buffer, as large, or larger than, buffers in place for similar natural areas in the Front Range Urban Corridor.2 In this context, the lighting on the temple spire is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the migratory and resident birds at these natural areas. 4.3.2 Land Use Context The project site is located in a mixed use area with residential areas, schools, churches and some businesses. Adjacent areas to the north and west have been compromised in terms of the integrity of night lighting. The natural areas to the southeast, south, and southwest are areas without lighting, but are at least partially compromised by adjacent development. 4.4 Conclusions The project site does not match the profile for a high impact site for migratory birds. The site is not located in a coastal area, on a major flyway or major inland water body. The proposed development does not include tall buildings with extensive lighting (skyscrapers), radio towers, lighthouses, or other similar structures that are known to have significant impacts to migratory birds. The total height of the building, spire and statue is 112' above ground level, well below the 200' height that is of concern for migrating birds (US Fish & Wildlife Service 2012). The project site is located in an area that is largely developed to urban density, or planned for urban density in the future. Resident birds that remain in this area have likely already adapted to 2 For example, Barr Lake State Park at Brighton, Boyd Lake State Park at Loveland, Chatfield State Park at Littleton, Pueblo Reservoir State Wildlife Area at Pueblo, and St. Vrain State Park (Barbour Ponds) at Longmont. 4 the impacts of urban lighting, or no longer use the area.3 Accordingly, the impact to resident birds in not expected to be significant. Although it is virtually impossible to quantify the impacts of the proposed lighting on the migratory and resident bird populations, the impacts can be qualified in general terms. Impacts to migratory birds from project lighting would be expected to be far less than already existing impacts from other development in the area, such as the regional airport south of Fossil Creek Reservoir, or the sky glow created by local shopping centers, street lighting, and the collections of tall buildings in the city. In this context, the project does not represent a significant cumulative impact. To the extent that there are adverse impacts to resident birds resulting from project lighting, these impacts would be expected to be less than impacts from domestic pets in the neighborhood, or impacts resulting from vehicular collisions on local roads. It is recommended that any additional mitigation efforts be undertaken within this context. 3 Robins, starlings and house sparrows have been observed by the report wildlife ecologist nesting on and within the external housing for parking lot lights. 5 5.0 Literature Sources Bower, Joe. 2000. The Dark Side of Light. National Audubon Society [Online]. Available: http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/darksideoflight.html [Last accessed December 26, 2012]. Cochran, W. W., and R. R. Graber. 1958. Attraction of nocturnal migrants by lights on a television tower. Wilson Bulletin 70:378–380. Erickson, Wallace P., and Gregory D. Johnson and David P. Young. 2005. A summary and comparison of bird mortality from anthropogenic causes with an emphasis on collisions. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Gauthreaux, S. A., and C. G. Belser. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on migrating birds. Pages 67–93 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Jones, J. and C.M. Francis. 2003. The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at lighthouses. Journal of Avian Biology. 34:328-333. Kempenaers, Bart, and Permilla Borgstrom, Peter Loes, Emmi Schlicht and Mihai Valcu. 2010. Artificial Night Lighting Affects Dawn Song, Extra Pair Siring Success, and Lay Date in Songbirds. Current Biology [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210010183 [Last accessed December 26, 2012]. Kerlinger, Paul and Curry, Richard C. 2009. Impacts of a small wind power facility in Weld County, Colorado, on breeding, migrating and wintering birds: preliminary results and conclusions. In Proceedings of National Avian-Windpower Planning Meeting III, Longcore, Travis and Catherine Rich. 2010. Light Pollution and Ecosystems. Actionbioscience.org [Online]. Available: http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/longcore_rich.html [Last accessed December 26, 2012]. Longcore, Travis and Catherine Rich. 2007. Effects of Artificial Lighting on Wildlife [Online]. Available: http://www.wildlandscpr.org/road-riporter/effects-artificial-lighting-wildlife [Last accessed December 26, 2012]. Longcore, Travis and Catherine Rich. 2004. Ecological Light Pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2(4): 191-198 [Online]. Available: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1540- 9295(2004)002[0191%3AELP]2.0.CO%3B2 [Last accessed December 26, 2012]. Miller, Mark W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. The Condor. 108: 130-139. Poot, H., B. J. Ens, H. de Vries, M. A. H. Donners, M. R. Wernand, and J. M. Marquenie. 2008. Green light for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society 13(2): 47 [Online]. Available: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art47/ [Last accessed December 26, 2012]. Rowan, William. 2008. Light and Seasonal Reproduction in Animals. Biological Reviews [Online]. Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469- 185X.1938.tb00523.x/abstract [Last accessed December 26. 2012]. 6 United States Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012. Recommendations to Avoid Adverse Impacts to Migratory Birds, Federally Listed Species, and Other Wildlife From Communication Towers and Antennae (Online) Available: http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/environmental.../USFWS- tower-recommendations.pdf [Last accessed December 26, 2012]. Wikipedia. 2012. Light Pollution [Online]. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution [Last accessed December 24, 2012]. Wiltschko, W., and R. Wiltschko. 2001. Light-dependent magnetoreception in birds: the behavior of European robins, Erithacus rubecula, under monochromatic light of various wavelengths and intensities. The Journal of Experimental Biology 204:3295–3302. Wiltschko, W., and R. Wiltschko. 1999. The effect of yellow and blue light on magnetic compass orientation in European robins, Erithacus rubecula. Journal of Comparitive Physiology A 184:295–299. Wiltschko, R., and W. Wiltschko. 1995a. Magnetic orientation in animals. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany. Wiltschko, W., and R. Wiltschko. 1995b. Migratory orientation of European robins is affected by the wavelength of light as well as by a magnetic pulse. Journal of Comparitive Physiology A 177:363–369. Wiltschko, W., U. Munro, H. Ford, and R. Wiltschko. 1993. Red light disrupts magnetic orientation of migratory birds. Nature 364:525–527.