Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIVER MODERN - PDP - PDP150005 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTOctober 22, 2014 Kyle Henderson KJH Commercial, LLC 7619 S Cedar Circle Littleton, CO 80120 RE: Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Report for the 900 E. Stuart Street Property Kyle: This letter report documents the evaluation of habitat conditions at the proposed 900 East Stuart Street development parcel in Fort Collins, Colorado. The report was prepared in accordance with Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins regarding the preparation of an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Report. The proposed development site is located in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado between the north side of East Stuart Street and the Spring Creek corridor to the north in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24 (T. 7 N. R. 69 W.). The 4.43-acre property boundaries are defined by existing residential developments, East Stuart Street, and the City of Fort Collins’ Spring Creek corridor. The property location is shown on Figure 1. The current development proposal calls for the development duplexes for residential housing and a school site on the approximate southern two-thirds of the project site. A 100-foot development setback (buffer zone) would be maintained for Spring Creek as required by Section 3.4.1 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Ecological characteristics of the property were reviewed during a field survey completed on October 20, 2014. The field survey was conducted to characterize existing wildlife habitats, as well as to identify any unique or sensitive natural resource features. The field survey did not include a delineation of wetland boundaries along Spring Creek since no development is proposed within the 100-foot Spring Creek buffer area. Natural Resources Conservation Service soils mapping was also reviewed, however, to determine if any known hydric (wetland) soil mapping units are located on the property. Observations recorded during the field evaluation included: major vegetation communities / wildlife habitats present within the property; dominant vegetation associated with each community / habitat; unique habitat features; and observations of wildlife species and/or definitive sign. Photographs showing representative views of existing habitats were also taken to document site conditions. Wildlife presence and habitat use was based on on-site observations and habitat presence in conjunction with the known habitat requirements of potential wildlife species. Existing habitats were also evaluated regarding their ability to support populations of threatened, endangered, and other sensitive plant and wildlife species. The following provides a summary of information required by Fort Collins Land Use Code under 3.4.1 (D) (1) items (a) through (k). ECOLOGICAL STUDY CHARACTERIZATION CHECKLIST (a & i) Habitats in the project area are composed predominantly of non-native grassland currently grazed by horses (see Figure 1). Residential development and landscaping and minor amounts of the Spring Creek wetlands and riparian corridor are also present. The non-native grassland portions of the property were mapped as two separate habitat areas, one dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis1), the other dominated by tall 1 Scientific nomenclature follows USDA, NRCS Plants Database. Available online at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/ K. Henderson 10/22/14 Page 2 of 3 fescue (Festuca arundinacea) (see Figure 1). The tall fescue dominated non-native grasslands are located in the lower elevation, more northern portion of the property next to the Spring Creek corridor. This area receives additional moisture from the Spring Creek drainage and from surface runoff from the more upland and southern portion of the property. Within the lowest elevation portions of tall fescue non-native grasslands, a few wetland- associated plants, such as reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), are supported, but tall fescue (an upland species) is the dominant cover species. Smooth brome non-native grassland is supported in the more upland and drier portions of the property (see Figure 1). Other vegetation species recorded within non-native grassland included weedy and non-native species such as field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), curly dock (Rumex crispus), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa), common mallow (Malva neglecta), and many-flowered aster (Symphyotrichum ericoides). Photos 1 and 2 provide representative views of tall fescue and smooth brome dominated non-native grasslands. Habitat value and wildlife use of non-native grassland habitats are limited by the dominance by non-native grass species; horse grazing use of the grassland and Spring Creek corridor portions of the property; and surrounding residential development, roads, and recreational trail use. Mice, voles, and pocket gopher are the only species likely to establish resident populations in non-native grassland habitat. Songbirds such as western meadowlark, Brewer’s blackbird, common grackle, and black-billed magpie may also occasionally use non-native grassland/pasture habitat. There was no evidence of prairie dogs or prairie dog burrows observed on the property. Canada geese may also occasionally graze the site. Geese could move up onto the property from Spring Creek. Woody species are limited to non-native Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) trees, saplings, and seedlings at scattered locations across the property and native eastern cottonwoods (Populus deltoides) along the western property boundary. One non-native mulberry (Morus sp.) tree also grows in the Siberian elm and cottonwood cluster at the west property boundary. Siberian elms, eastern cottonwoods, one non-native Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), one non-native green ash (Fraxinus americanus), and one native peachleaf willow (Salix amygdaloides) also grow within the Spring Creek corridor. Some of these are on City owned land within the Spring Creek corridor. Tree locations and sizes are depicted on Figure 1. The City Forester or a private arborist will need to evaluate the health of native and non-native trees greater than 6 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) within the property boundaries to determine their significance status. The Spring Creek corridor and associated wetlands are the only unique habitat features within or near the project area (see following discussion under Section (b)). In terms of vegetation and wildlife species diversity, wildlife habitat value, and potential to support sensitive plant and wildlife species, riparian and wetland habitats in conjunction with aquatic habitats along Spring Creek represent the only important habitats within or near the project area. These habitats are limited in areal extent along the Front Range and are usually only found in association with perennial and intermittent drainages and other sources of surface water. Spring Creek also provides a wildlife movement corridor for a variety of wildlife species that would not be found in areas of urban development, although its value as a movement corridor is restricted by numerous road crossings and recreational use of the Spring Creek Trail. Wetlands and associated open water habitats provide foraging, resting, and breeding habitat for some urban adapted species of waterfowl such as mallard and Canada goose. Wetlands with herbaceous and woody vegetation cover also support a variety of other wildlife populations including small mammals, mammalian predators, songbirds, reptiles, and amphibians. Larger trees and snags in riparian habitats provide important foraging and/or nesting habitat for woodpeckers and a variety of songbirds, but the proximity of residential developments and human recreational activities along the Spring Creek Trail restricts avian use of trees on or near the property primarily to songbird species adapted to urban environments. No evidence of raptor nesting activity was noted in the trees, and use of these trees by raptors, other than possibly great horned owl, is unlikely. Mammalian predators such as coyote, striped skunk, and red fox may occasionally move along the Spring Creek corridor and hunt non-native grassland habitats in the project area. Photo 3 provides a view of the Spring Creek corridor in the project area. K. Henderson 10/22/14 Page 3 of 3 The remaining habitat/land use in the project area is residential. There are no important habitat features within this residential development other than the mature Siberian elm and pine (Pinus sp.) trees planted for landscaping (see Figure 1). Wildlife use of residential trees and shrubbery is limited to urban-adapted songbirds. Photo 4 provides a view of the residential portion of the project area. (b) According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils mapping for the property (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) the predominant soils in the project area are Altvan-Satanta loams, Kim loam, Stoneham loam, and Nunn clay loam, wet. Altvan-Satanta loams, Kim loam, and Stoneham loam occupy the upland portions and are deep, well-drained soils. Runoff on these soils is medium and the erosion hazard is moderate. Nunn clay loam, wet is associated with the Spring Creek drainage along the northern property edge. Nunn clay loam, wet is a deep, somewhat poorly drained soil. Runoff is slow and the hazard of erosion is slight. No problem erosion areas were noted on the property. Project area soil mapping units are not classified as hydric (wetland) soils, but they can contain hydric inclusions. The only evidence of all three wetland parameters (hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and wetland vegetation), required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for wetland determination, was found within the Spring Creek corridor (see Figure 1). Wetlands along Spring Creek in the project area are dominated primarily by stands of reed canarygrass with lesser amounts of Emory sedge (Carex emoryii). The wetland/upland boundary is defined by a relatively sharp transition in vegetation dominance from reed canarygrass in the wetlands to dense stands of tall fescue in the adjacent uplands. Wetlands along Spring Creek were not delineated since no development is proposed within the Spring Creek corridor and the associated 100-foot Spring Creek buffer. Wetlands in the project area are less than of 1/3 acre in size, and Section 3.4.1 of the City’s Land Use Code stipulates a non-development buffer of 50 feet for wetlands of this size. Current project development plans indicate a development setback of 100 feet would be maintained between proposed development areas and Spring Creek, which would also provide sufficient buffer for wetlands associated with Spring Creek. (c) Surrounding development restricts any long-range views of significant topographic features in the region. The property does provide views of the Spring Creek corridor, which is classified by the City as a Natural Area. (d) As indicated under (a & i) the project area supports little native vegetation. Trees 6 inches (dbh) or larger are restricted primarily to the western property edge, residential landscaping, and the Spring Creek corridor. Many of these may be classified as significant since they exceed 6 inches in diameter. Green ash, Russian olive, and Siberian elm are non-native trees, and Russian olive and Siberian elm are classified as nuisance species by the City of Fort Collins. However, these trees do provide perching, foraging, and nesting habitat value for songbirds. (e) The Spring Creek drainage is the only natural drainage on or near the project area. (f) The property was evaluated with regards to potential habitat for state and federal listed threatened and endangered species. Wetlands along Spring Creek were judged to be the only areas that could possibly provide suitable habitat for three federal listed threatened species, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana coloradensis), and Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis). An evaluation of their potential presence is provided in the following paragraphs. Suitable habitat for the jumping mouse is provided by low undergrowth consisting of grasses, forbs, or both in open wet meadows and riparian corridors or where tall shrubs and low trees provide adequate cover. Potential habitat includes wet meadow habitats, native hayfields, stream channels (perennial and intermittent), riparian habitats, or floodplains below 7,600 feet elevation in Colorado. Saturated wetlands supporting dense stands of cattail or bulrush do not provide suitable habitat conditions for the jumping mouse (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service K. Henderson 10/22/14 Page 4 of 3 1999; Armstrong et al. 1997)2. Suitable habitat conditions were judged to be marginal for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse because of the general lack of shrub and tree cover and the adjacent presence of upland, non- native grassland instead of moist native meadow. Previous habitat assessments indicating lack of suitable habitat and negative trapping surveys completed by Cedar Creek along a nearby segment of Spring Creek (Pinnacle Development) have been reviewed and approved by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Colorado butterfly plant is a short-lived, perennial herb endemic to moist soils in mesic or wet meadows of floodplain areas in southeastern Wyoming, north-central Colorado, and extreme western Nebraska. This early to mid-seral stage species occurs primarily in habitats created and maintained by streams active within their floodplains with vegetation that is relatively open and not overly dense or overgrown. It is found on subirrigated, alluvial soils of drainage bottoms surrounded by mixed grass prairie at elevations of 5,000 to 6,400 feet (Spackman et al., 1997, Federal Register, 1998)3. Populations of this species are often found in low depressions or along bends in wide, active, meandering stream channels a short distance upslope of the actual channel. The plant requires early to mid-seral riparian habitats. Typical habitat is relatively open without dense or overgrown vegetation. It commonly occurs in communities dominated by redtop (Agrostis stolonifera) and Kentucky bluegrass on wetter sites and by wild licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota), Flodman's thistle (Cirsium flodmanii), curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa), and smooth scouring rush (Hippochaete laevigata) on drier sites. These areas are usually intermediate in moisture between wet, streamside communities dominated by sedges, rushes, and cattails, and dry shortgrass prairie (Federal Register 1998). Suitable streamside habitats for Colorado butterfly plant are nonexistent along Spring Creek within the project area. Habitat for the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid typically consists of seasonally moist soils and wet meadows near lakes, springs, or perennial streams and their associated floodplains below 6,500 feet. Associated vegetation species typically include those with a "FACW" Corps of Engineers classification (Equisetum, Asclepias, Calamagrostis, Solidago, etc. genera) occurring in relatively open and not overly dense, overgrown, or over- grazed areas. This species prefers comparatively well-drained, high moisture content wetland soils that are not strongly anaerobic or composed of heavy clays. Conversely, sites consisting entirely of dense stands of reed canarygrass, those characterized by standing water including monocultures of cattails or three-square, dense clayey soils, or highly saline soils supporting a dense community of inland saltgrass (Distichlis stricta) are not considered to be habitat for this species (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service memorandum: Plants - Spiranthes diluvialis, Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, dated November 23, 1992). Wetlands supported along Spring Creek are comprised primarily of dense stands of reed canarygrass and Emory sedge that do not create suitable habitat conditions for Ute ladies’-tresses orchid. (g) Past removal of native habitat has eliminated the potential for any special habitat features on the property other than significant trees and wetlands/aquatic habitat along Spring Creek. (h) The Spring Creek corridor is the only wildlife movement corridor within 500 feet of the project area. Project development would not have any impact on this wildlife movement corridor since a 100-foot buffer would be maintained for Spring Creek. 2 Armstrong, D.M., M.E. Bakeman, N.W. Clippinger, A. Deans, M. Margulies, C.A. Meaney, C. Miller, M. O’Shea-Stone, T.R. Ryon, and M. Sanders. 1997. Report on habitat findings of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Edited by M.E. Bakeman. Report presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 91 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Interim survey guidelines for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, May 19, 1999. 3 Federal Register. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: proposed threatened status for the plant, Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis. Federal Register: March 24, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 56) pp.14060-14065. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado rare plant field guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, Colorado. K. Henderson 10/22/14 Page 5 of 3 (j) There is only one issue regarding the timing of property development and ecological features or wildlife use of the project area. If the development proposal includes removal of any trees on the property or if construction occurs near an occupied bird nest during the songbird nesting season (April through July), these activities could result in the loss or abandonment of a nest and would be in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. (k) Since the entire portion of the property proposed for development has been converted to residential or non- native grassland habitats, project development would have no impact on natural habitats or important habitat features, other than existing trees on the property. Trees determined to be significant on the property should be preserved to the extent possible. Removal of any trees classified as significant would need to be mitigated with replacement trees, as determined by the City Forester based on the Land Use Code. Additional mitigation plantings would also need to be made for loss of non-significant trees providing wildlife habitat value. Because tree removal or construction near trees during the nesting season could result in the loss or abandonment of a nest, it is recommended that tree removal or construction near raptor or songbird nests occur outside of the nesting season (April 1 – July 31), or trees on or near the project area be surveyed to ensure lack of nesting prior to removal or construction activities during the nesting season. This mitigation recommendation would preclude the possible incidental take or disturbance of active songbird nests. Current development plans indicate a development setback of 100 feet would be maintained from Spring Creek. Currently the buffer area is dominated by tall fescue non-native grassland. Horses currently graze the grasses, forbs, and woody species along Spring Creek on the project area and adjacent City owned property. Removal of horse grazing pressure on the property and within the Spring Creek corridor is the primary mitigation recommendation for enhancement of the buffer zone and adjacent City owned portions of the Spring Creek corridor. Elimination of grazing pressure will enhance grass and forb growth in the corridor and also permit recovery of existing shrubs and trees as well as natural regrowth of native streamside woody vegetation. Although a non-native species, tall fescue has become naturalized adjacent to many drainages and moist pasture sites within the Fort Collins area. When not grazed, tall fescue creates stable and relatively tall, dense grass cover at these sites, thereby controlling erosion and capturing surface runoff prior to release into adjacent drainages. Therefore, it is recommended that tall fescue grass cover be maintained in the buffer area, but the buffer should be enhanced by the control and/or removal of broad-leafed weeds, such as Canada thistle. Plantings of additional native woody species such as chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), coyote willow (Salix exigua), peachleaf willow, eastern cottonwood, golden current (Ribes aureum), serviceberry (Almelanchier alnifolia), and American plum (Prunus americana) in the wetland and adjacent upland portions of the buffer zone should also be implemented to enhance the buffer zone. Native tree plantings in the buffer zone could also be used to mitigate significant and wildlife habitat trees lost to project development. Revegetation of any water quality/detention basins should also use native grass and forb species to meet buffer zone performance standards stipulated in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code also stipulates that: “Projects in the vicinity of large natural habitats and/or natural habitat corridors, including, but not limited to, the Poudre River Corridor and the Spring Creek Corridor, shall be designed to complement the visual context of the natural habitat. Techniques such as architectural design, site design, the use of native landscaping and choice of colors and building materials shall be utilized in such manner that scenic views across or through the site are protected, and manmade facilities are screened from off-site observers and blend with the natural visual character of the area. These requirements shall apply to all elements of a project, including any aboveground utility installations.” Planting of additional woody species in the buffer zone would help visually shield the proposed development from the Spring Creek corridor and recreation trail. The selection of building colors and surface textures facing the Spring Creek corridor and recreation should also be used to minimize the visual intrusion of the development on Spring Creek as stipulated by Section 3.4.1(I)(1) of the Land Use Code. K. Henderson 10/22/14 Page 6 of 3 Section 3.4.1(L)(M) requires reasonable public access to Natural Areas whenever a project abuts a Natural Area. A project area trail connection to the Spring Creek trail system could be easily constructed at the northwest corner of the proposed development site. A trail connection in this area could be constructed without the need to bridge the Spring Creek drainage. One final mitigation recommendation is based on Article 3.2.4(D)(6) in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code that requires protection of natural areas and natural features from light spillage from off site sources. Therefore, intensity of night lighting from the sides of project residential structures facing the Spring Creek buffer zone should be shielded or directed to preclude the intrusion of artificial nighttime light into the landscaped buffer zone and adjacent Spring Creek corridor. This concludes Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.’s evaluation of the 900 East Stuart Street property. If you have any questions or require additional information regarding my evaluation, please give me a call. Sincerely, INC. T. Michael Phelan Principal Senior Wildlife Biologist attachments: Figure 1, Habitat Mapping for the 900 East Stuart Street Project Area Photos 1, 2, 3, and 4