Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVILLAGE ON HORSETOOTH (AFFORDABLE HOUSING) - PDP - PDP160025 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTJuly 14, 2016 Kristin Fritz, Senior Project Manager Fort Collins Housing Authority 1715 W. Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Letter Report for the Village on Horsetooth Development Parcel Kristin: This letter report is submitted to satisfy the requirements of Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins regarding the submittal of an ECS Report for proposed development projects. The Village on Horsetooth project site is located at 1506 W. Horsetooth Road on a City Land Bank Property The project site occupies 8.3 acres in the southwest ¼ of the southeast ¼ of Section 27 (Township 7 North, Range 69 West). The project location is displayed on Figure 1. The property is zoned Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN). The project would include 96 units of multi-family affordable housing in 9 residential buildings plus one community clubhouse. The residential buildings would be 2-stories and contain units ranging from one bedroom to four bedrooms. There will be 175 parking spaces with vehicular access from Horsetooth Road. A 50-foot buffer from the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal has been incorporated into the site plan. Ecological characteristics of the property were reviewed and evaluated on July 11, 2016. The field survey was conducted to characterize existing wildlife habitats, as well as identify any unique or sensitive natural resource features. Prior to the initiation of the field survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils mapping (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) was reviewed to determine if any known hydric (wetland) or highly erosive 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 ecological information required by Fort Collins Land Use Code under 3.4.1 (D) (1) items (a) through (k). ECOLOGICAL STUDY CHARACTERIZATION CHECKLIST (a & i) Topography of the project site is essentially level. Surrounding land uses include existing and proposed residential development, a roadway, and the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal along the property’s east border. The only sensitive habitat areas or features on or near the property are mature trees and the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. Most of the project surface area has been converted to residential use and horse boarding/training facilities. Existing habitats/land uses on the project site consist of non-native grassland/weedy, horse training and boarding facilities, and residential and non-native tree stands (see Figure 1 and Table 1). Non-native Grassland/Weedy Habitat. Two areas of non-native grassland/weedy habitat are located in the in the project area (see Figure 1). This habitat has been cleared of native vegetation and planted to non- K. Fritz 7/14/16 Page 2 of 5 native pasture grasses, primarily smooth brome (Bromus inermis1) and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). A native weedy, annual grass, little barley (Hordeum pusillum), is also prevalent in the north non- native grassland/weedy habitat area. Common weeds in the non-native grassland/weedy areas are field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), flixweed (Descurainia sophia), yellow alyssum (Alyssum alyssoides), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Photos 1 and 2 provide representative views of non-native grassland/weedy habitat. Non-native grassland/weedy habitat has been converted by past land use practices to ground dominated primarily by non-native grasses and annual weed species. It is assumed this habitat is used for hay production or is grazed by horses boarded on the property. Wildlife habitat quality is very low in these areas due their small size, grazing and/or mowing practices, and surrounding residential and roadway land uses. This non-native grass-dominated habitat provides suitable habitat conditions for only a few small mammal species such as deer mouse, house mouse, and northern pocket gopher. Because of small parcel size and consistent disturbance associated with horse training activities, songbird use is restricted to occasional foraging by urban adapted species such as house sparrow and American robin. Horse Training and Boarding Facilities. This land use area is characterized by corrals, sheds, stalls, and barns. Undeveloped ground has been heavily disturbed by horse boarding and training activities and is either bare or dominated by annual weeds including species such as flixweed, pitseed goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri), field bindweed, prostate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), and common mallow (Malva neglecta). Photos 3 and 4 provide representative views of horse training and boarding facilities areas. This land use area has essentially zero wildlife habitat value because of building footprints, bare ground, annual weed dominated sites, and continual disturbance by horse training and boarding activities. Residential. This land use area contains two houses, garages, driveway, parking areas, and outbuildings in addition to turf grass and landscape trees. The landscape trees are all non-native trees that were planted in association with the existing residence. Table 1 provides a listing of trees in the residential area. Wildlife habitat value is very low in the residential area because of the lack of native vegetation and human activities associated with residential use. The principal wildlife habitat value of the residential area is provided by the trees that may be used year round and/or seasonally for perching, foraging, and nesting by a variety of urban-adapted songbird and other avian species. Avian species possibly using these trees include downy woodpecker, western kingbird, black-billed magpie, black-capped chickadee, house sparrow, blue jay, American robin, northern flicker, mourning dove, and house finch, among others. The only avian species observed on the property during the field survey were house sparrow, American robin, house finch, and blue jay. The proximity of a roadway and residential activities, may limit their overall habitat value. No evidence of nesting use was observed in any of the trees on the property. Driveway and Canal Trees. There are linear and relative dense stands of trees planted along the west side of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal as well as on the west side of the entry driveway. Similar to the residential landscape trees all, except for Rocky Mountain juniper, are non-native trees (see Table 1). None of the driveway and canal trees are phreatophytes or wetland species that commonly grow in association with wetlands or along watercourses to create riparian woodland communities. Therefore the tree stands along the canal were not classified as riparian woodland. Photo 5 provides a representative view of the driveway and canal tree stands. Photo 6 provides a view of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal adjacent to the driveway and canal tree stands. 1 Scientific nomenclature for plants follows USDA, NRCS Plants Database. Available online at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/ K. Fritz 7/14/16 Page 3 of 5 Wildlife habitat value of the driveway and canal tree stands is higher than for tree stands in the residential area due to the proximity of seasonal surface water in the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal and by the fact that the canal provides a possible movement corridor for wildlife (see item h). The principal wildlife habitat value of the driveway and canal trees is that they may be used year round and/or seasonally for perching, foraging, and nesting by a variety of songbird and other avian species. Species use of these trees is similar to that described for the residential tree stands. Table 1 Approximate Number of Trees and Their Size Range in the Village on Horsetooth Project Area Species Number Size Range (dbh) Comments Residential Area Trees Apple, Malus pumila 1 < 6” non-native Apple, Malus pumila 1 > 6” non-native Aspen, Populus tremuloides 1 < 6” native to region but not Fort Collins; dead Austrian pine, Pinus nigra 1 < 6” non-native Englemann spruce, Picea englemannii 1 > 6” native to region but not Fort Collins Russian olive, Elaeagnus angustifolia 1 < 6” non-native Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila 6 < 6” non-native; 1 dead Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila 4 > 6” non-native; 1 dead; 1 partially decadent Silver maple, Acer saccharinum 1 > 6” non-native Driveway and Canal Trees Austrian pine, Pinus nigra 8 < 6” non-native Austrian pine, Pinus nigra 10 > 6” non-native Eastern white cedar, Thuja occidentalis 7 < 6” non-native Englemann spruce, Picea englemannii 1 > 6” native to region but not Fort Collins Red mulberry, Morus rubra 1 > 6” non-native; growing on east side of canal but overhanging into project area Rocky Mountain juniper, Juniperus scopulorum 15 < 6” native Rocky Mountain juniper, Juniperus scopulorum 2 > 6” native Russian olive, Elaeagnus angustifolia 1 > 6” non-native Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila 7 < 6” non-native Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila 24 > 6” non-native; 1 dead; 3 partially decadent Horse Training and Boarding Facilities Trees American elm, Ulmus americana 1 > 6” non-native Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila 16 < 6” non-native; 1 dead Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila 15 > 6” non-native; 6 partially decadent K. Fritz 7/14/16 Page 4 of 5 (b) NRCS, soils mapping for the project area (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx), indicates Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes, underlie the entire project area. This soil is not classified as a hydric (wetland) soil by the NRCS. It is deep and well drained, runoff is slow, and the hazards of wind and water erosion are slight. No problem erosion areas were noted on the property during the field survey. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requires evidence of three wetland parameters (hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and wetland vegetation) to be met for wetland determination. No indicators of any of these wetland parameters were found anywhere on the property except along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. Wetlands in the canal are confined to a relatively narrow (1-foot wide) strip along the upper, inner edge of the canal embankments and are comprised solely of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The canal wetlands were not delineated since project development would have no impact on the canal, but based on the narrow configuration of the canal wetlands in the project area, the total extent of the wetlands is well under 0.3 acre. Based on Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, a 50-foot buffer would apply to these wetlands (c) The project area provides partial views of a portion of the Front Range foothills (see Photo 1). (d) As indicated under (a & i) the project area supports no native vegetation, except for Rocky Mountain juniper and a few weed species. Some of the junipers are greater than 6 inches in diameter and would likely be classified as significant trees by the City Forester. The City Forester may also classify non-native trees greater than 6 inches in diameter in the residential and driveway/canal stands as significant. Trees on the property will need to be inventoried by the City Forester to determine significance potential and possible need for mitigation, if trees would be removed by development. Siberian elms are considered and undesirable, invasive species, but even non-significant or undesirable, non-native tree species provide some wildlife habitat and mitigation may be required for those trees lost to development. (e) There are no natural drainages on or near the property. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal along the eastern property boundary is a constructed water conveyance ditch for irrigation water distribution. The buffer zone to be established for this canal would be sufficient to protect water quality of runoff into the canal. (f) There is no suitable habitat for any threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species on or adjacent to the project area. No other sensitive or ecologically important species are likely to use the property since the majority of its surface has been converted from native habitats to residential, horse facilities, weedy areas, and non-native grassland. (g) Past removal of native habitat has eliminated the potential for any special habitat features on the property other than some of the trees, which may by classified as significant by the City Forester. (h) The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal provides a possible wildlife movement connection from the Cache la Poudre River just west of Ted’s place to the Fossil Creek drainage, Fossil Creek Wetlands, and Fossil Creek Reservoir southeast of the project area. Although the continuity of the canal is interrupted by numerous road crossings, much of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal corridor is relatively wide and passes through many areas of still undeveloped land. Therefore, the stipulation of a 50-foot wildlife movement corridor buffer in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code would apply to this feature. The 50-foot buffer should be measured from the top of bank on the west side of the canal. (j) There is one issue regarding the timing of property development and ecological features or wildlife use of the project area. If development includes removal of any trees on the property or if construction occurs near an occupied bird nest during the songbird nesting season (March 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. No evidence of 2016 avian nesting activity was documented during the July 11, 2016 survey, but if initiation of K. Fritz 7/14/16 Page 5 of 5 planned development extends into the 2017-nesting season, a follow-up nest survey may be necessary to confirm lack of nesting. (k) Since the project area has been converted to residential, horse facilities, weedy areas, and non-native grassland habitats, project development would have no impact on natural habitats or important habitat features, other than existing trees on the property. The 50-foot buffer established for the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal in the current development plans would improve the current condition of project area portions of the canal wildlife movement corridor since the existing condition has an active dirt driveway along the west side of the canal. This buffer would also meet the City buffer standard for wetlands less than 0.3 acres in size since the canal wetlands are confined entirely with the canal embankments. It is recommended that existing native and non-native trees adjacent to the west side of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal be preserved, unless they are in poor condition, since these trees are relatively dense and currently provide good visual screening between the canal and the project area as well as mature tree and shrub habitat for songbirds. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal wildlife movement corridor could be further enhanced by plantings of upland native trees and shrubs in current driveway portions buffer zone area west of existing tree stands. These plantings could also be used to mitigate significant and wildlife trees lost to the proposed development. Loss of trees classified as significant would need to be mitigated with replacement trees as per Section 3.2.1 (F) of the Land Use Code. Native woody plantings would increase habitat diversity and provide additional visual screening between the proposed development and wildlife use of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal wildlife movement corridor. The goal of plantings in the buffer zone should be to create a self-sustaining, native vegetation community to enhance wildlife habitat. Buffer zone enhancement and planting plans should be coordinated with City Planning and Natural Resources staff. Supplemental irrigation may be required for initial establishment of shrubs, trees and herbaceous species. A weed management plan should be developed in concert with habitat enhancement plantings to minimize the development of non-desirable, invasive species in the buffer zone enhancement area. One final mitigation recommendation is based on Article 3.2.4(D)(6) in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, which requires protection of natural areas and natural features from light spillage from off site sources. Therefore, the intensity of night lighting from the areas of development facing the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal buffer zone should be shielded or directed to minimize the intrusion of artificial nighttime light into these areas. This concludes Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.’s evaluation of the Village on Horsetooth project area. 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 pc: L. Ripley, Ripley Design, Inc. attachments: Figure 1, Habitat Mapping for the Village on Horsetooth Project Area Photos 1 through 6 of the Village on Horsetooth Project Area