Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2620 W. ELIZABETH ST., SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED - PDP - PDP160037 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTAugust 11, 2016 Tony Wille, President High Plains Builders, LLC P.O. Box 2796 Gillette, WY 827217 RE: Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Letter Report for the 2620 W. Elizabeth Development Parcel Tony: 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 project site occupies 2.35 acres on West Elizabeth Street in the southeast ¼ of the northwest ¼ of Section 16 (Township 7 North, Range 69 West). The project location is displayed on Figure 1. Ecological characteristics of the property were reviewed and evaluated on August 9, 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 residential development and roadways. The only sensitive habitat areas or features on or near the property are mature trees. The entire project surface area has been converted to residential use, abandoned vegetable garden, and non-native grassland. Existing habitats/land uses on the project site consist of non-native grassland/weedy, abandoned vegetable garden/weedy, residential, and tree stands (see Figure 1 and Table 1). Two small disturbed areas (waste pile/collapsed root cellar and old foundation) and a small irrigation ditch are also present. Non-native Grassland/Weedy Habitat. The majority of undeveloped land on the property consists of areas of non-native grassland/weedy habitat (see Figure 1). This habitat has been cleared of native vegetation and planted to non-native pasture grasses, primarily smooth brome (Bromus inermis1) and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). Common weeds in the non-native grassland/weedy areas are field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), flixweed (Descurainia sophia), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and common mallow (Malva neglecta). At the time of the field survey, this entire area had been recently mowed, and grass cover was less than 6 inches 1 Scientific nomenclature for plants follows USDA, NRCS Plants Database. Available online at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/ T. Wille 8/11/16 Page 2 of 5 Table 1 Approximate Number of Trees and Their Size Range in the West Elizabeth Property Species Number Size Range (dbh) Comments Trees 1 Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila 1 5-7” non-native; multi- trunked Trees 2 Boxelder, Acer negundo 2 3-5” native Common apple, Malus pumila 4 2-8” non-native; all multi- trunked Green ash, Fraxinus pennsyvanica 17 <1-8” non-native; most small saplings Lance-leaf cottonwood, Populus acuminata 7 5-48” native; all multi-trunked Russian olive, Elaeagnus angustifolia 1 6-8” non-native; multi- trunked Trees 3 Common apple, Malus pumila 1 3-5” non-native; multi- trunked Trees 4 Boxelder, Acer negundo 1 2-9” native; multi-trunked Trees 5 Common apple, Malus pumila 4 3-8” non-native; 2 multi- trunked Trees 6 American elm, Ulmus americana 1 36” non-native Boxelder, Acer negundo 1 1-4” native; multi-trunked Common apple, Malus pumila 16 1-8” non-native; most multi- trunked; some partially decadent Lance-leaf cottonwood, Populus acuminata 1 14” native Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila 3 1-8” non-native; most multi- trunked Trees 7 Common apple, Malus pumila 3 3-10” non-native; most multi- trunked; some partially decadent Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila 1 1-3” non-native; multi- trunked tall. Trees growing in non-native grassland/weedy habitat are listed in Table 1 (tree areas 1, 2, 3, 4). All but lance-leaf cottonwood and boxelder are non-native trees. Photos 1 and 2 provide representative views of non-native grassland/weedy habitat. Photo 3 provides a view of trees growing in non-native grassland/weedy habitat along the northern property boundary. 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 may have been used for T. Wille 8/11/16 Page 3 of 5 hay production in the past. Wildlife habitat quality is very low in this area due to its small size, 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. Trees are the most valuable habitat features in this habitat. Existing trees 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 and western kingbird. No evidence of nesting use was observed in any of the trees on the property. Abandoned Vegetable Garden/Weedy. This habitat area appears to have been recently managed as a vegetable garden but has been abandoned and is now dominated by annual weeds and non-native grasses re-colonizing from adjacent non-native grassland/weedy habitat. Pitseed goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri) is the dominant weed in this area. Other less dominant weeds are: field bindweed, prickly lettuce, and common mullein (Verbasum thapsus). Stands of smooth brome and crested wheatgrass are also re-establishing in this area. Wildlife habitat value of this area is similar to that described for non-native grassland/weedy habitat. Photos 3 and 4 provide representative views of the abandoned vegetable garden/weedy habitat area. Residential. This land use area contains an abandoned house, storage shed, driveway, parking areas, and landscaped areas with grasses, landscape trees, apple trees, and landscape shrubs. The landscape trees are all non-native trees except for lance-leaf cottonwood and boxelder, which were planted in association with the abandoned residence. Table 1 provides a listing of trees in the residential area (tree areas 5, 6, and 7). The most common ornamental shrubs observed in this area are common lilac (Syringa vulgaris), Tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). Photo 5 provides a view of trees stands along the west side of the residential area. Wildlife habitat value is low in the residential area because of the lack of native vegetation and past 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 use of these trees is similar to that described for the non-native grassland/weedy habitat tree stands. Ditch. A small irrigation ditch is located on the project site (see Figure 1). The ditch begins at the northwest property corner at a concrete pipe outlet and exits the project area at a grated drain hole near the northeast property corner (see Figure 1). The origin of water feeding into the ditch or destination of the water leaving the property is unknown. No continuation of this ditch upstream or downstream of the project area could be found by review of existing Larimer County aerial photography or USGS topographic maps. It may be fed water by the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, which is located approximately 0.25 mile west of the project site. However, this is just conjecture. The project area ditch is a small irrigation feature and averages only about 1-foot wide. The ditch does not appear to have been recently used for irrigation of the project area since there are no diversion structures to direct water to non-native grassland or abandoned vegetable gardens. The ditch also apparently does not carry water frequently through the property since no wetlands are supported within the interior or outer banks of the ditch. Vegetation evidence of more mesic, but non-wetland, conditions along the ditch was provided by relatively narrow stands of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) supported immediately adjacent to some portions of the ditch. Tall fescue is not classified as a wetland plant by the NRCS, but it typically requires more water than the other adjacent dryland grasses such as smooth brome and crested wheatgrass. Photo 6 provides a view of the ditch channel and adjacent stands of tall fescue. T. Wille 8/11/16 Page 4 of 5 (b) NRCS, soils mapping for the project area (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx), indicates Altvan-Satanta loams 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 on the property, including the unnamed ditch. (c) The project area provides partial views of a portion of the Front Range foothills. (d) As indicated under (a & i) the project area supports no native vegetation, except for lanceleaf cottonwood, boxelder, and a few weed species. Some of these trees 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 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 elm and Russian olive are considered 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 small, unnamed ditch is a constructed water conveyance structure. (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 non-native grassland, residential, and weedy areas. (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 unnamed ditch does not provide a wildlife movement connection to any natural or undeveloped areas since it enters the property via a small underground pipe and leaves the property by passing through a grated opening, which was assumed to feed another underground pipe. (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 August 9, 2016 survey, but if initiation of 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, 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. It is recommended that existing significant native and non-native trees supported on the property be preserved, where possible, since these trees provide perching, foraging, and possible nesting habitat for songbirds. 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 and nuisance trees providing wildlife habitat value. Mitigation tree plantings could be accomplished by plantings of T. Wille 8/11/16 Page 5 of 5 appropriate native shrubs and trees in the Tract A area around proposed detention. Species selection should be coordinated with Fort Collins Natural Resources staff. No other Section 3.4.1 buffer zone or mitigation requirements would apply to development of the project area. This concludes Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.’s evaluation of the 2620 W. Elizabeth 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: The Birdsall Group attachments: Figure 1, Habitat Mapping for the 2620 W. Elizabeth Project Area Photos 1 through 6 of the 2620 W. Elizabeth Project Area