Loading...
6A - Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for Fourmile Creek Greenways Improvement Project (26th to 28th Street) CITY OF BOULDER INFORMATION ITEM FOR: ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD - January S, 2011 TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD - January 10, 2011 WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD - January 17, 2011 PLANNING BOARD - January 6, 2011 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - January 24, 2011 OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES - January 12, 2011 GREENWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: January 26, 2011 SUBJECT: CEAP for Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenways Improvement Project 26`h to 28`h Street REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Anne Noble - Greenways Coordinator PURPOSE: A CEAP is being provided to board members as an information item. It is requested you review the CEAP and forward any comments or concerns to your Greenways Advisory Committee representative. If you have questions on this material, please contact Annie Noble at 303-441-3242 or nobleagbouldereolorado.gov GREENWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: A recommendation from the Greenways Advisory Committee to City Council concerning the Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenways Improvement Project 26 h to 28 Streets CEAP is requested. Agenda Item 6A - Page I Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenways Improvement Project 26th to 28th Street Community and Environmental Assessment Process Report b. f b I1 1,! 1 ;j~{ ~YEF y Q f * Y t k ~Y ~ °V~ .Mllf M ~h: ~y r ftX 77 December 2010 Agenda Item 6A - Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Improvements between 26th and 28th Streets along Fourmile Canyon Creek have been budgeted in the Greenways and Flood Utility Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) for the last 10 years. The Greenways Master Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan and North Boulder Sub-community Plan each identify improvements to meet objectives of these individual plans. Collectively these improvements include habitat restoration, formalizing the pedestrian and bicycle underpass at 28th Street, constructing a concrete multi-use path connection from 28th to 26th Streets, and replacing the roadway bridge at 26th Street with a new structure that provides a grade-separated underpass crossing, as well as high hazard flood mitigation in the vicinity of 26"' Street. The estimated cost of these improvements is approximately $2 million. The City recently was awarded Colorado Safe Routes to School funding in the amount of $200,000 to construct the multi-use path connection between 26th and 28th Streets. Other objectives of the project are to formalize the Four Mile Canyon Creek underpass at 28th Street and multi-use path connection to Wonderland Creek. An additional $75,000 is included in the Greenways budget to provide habitat improvements through landscaping with native riparian vegetation. This CEAP focuses only on the above components of the Greenways reach improvements. The replacement of the 26th Street bridge and flood mitigation improvements with associated habitat improvements along Fourmile Canyon Creek in this reach will be considered as a future project. A public process, which included three public meetings, was conducted in conjunction with the development of conceptual plans for the Elks Neighborhood Park. Meetings were held throughout the fall of 2010. The Community and Environmental Assessment Process (LEAP) is a formal review process to consider the impacts of public development projects. The purpose of the CEAP is to assess potential impacts of conceptual project alternatives in order to inform the selection and refinement of a preferred alternative. This CEAP provides an evaluation of two alternatives for the path connection between 28th and 26th Streets along Fourmile Canyon Creek, with a focus on the connection of the path to 26th Street west of the Elks Park. Option 1 evaluates an at-grade connection on the north side of Fourmile Canyon Creek, with Option 2 on the south side of the creek. An alternative path alignment through the Elks Park, which proposed a circuitous route around the perimeter of the park rather than a path adjacent to Four Mile Canyon Creek was also considered. This option was eliminated from further CEAP analysis in response to community input at the first public meeting primarily because it was less direct and did not meet a primary objective of the project, which is to complete a connection to the Wonderland Creek Greenway path. This CEAP provides a comparative evaluation of two at-grade alignment options to 26th Street. Option 1, the northern connection, would be constructed through private property within an existing easement. In order to stay within the existing easement, the path would be placed within the inner wetland buffer. Option 2, the southern alternative connection, would require a low water crossing or a bridge to route the path from the north side of Fourmile Canyon Creek to the south side of the creek. Once the path crosses the creek it could be constructed to be outside of the wetland buffer area. Option 2 falls entirely within a city owned parcel that was purchased as a high hazard flood property. It is identified as the preferred option as it has less of an impact on Agenda Item 6A - Page 3 trees and wetlands, is entirely on city owned property, results in less impact on adjacent property owners and provides a better connection the connection to Agate Road, which will be designated as a bike route to the west. Crest View Elementary - .~P+ ~{jy - IC, tea' " 'F d~t±.a a v. # ~cj1z ,~x r. Sale Routes t0 $Ch001+~i , 4rt" x Protect Improvements ot/ .uar r Y 7 4 ~ti -na . ~ r r M?r t , . "r2 r"l ~ 3 Z _ Iro, rr . F` 41' ".2 rip r Centennial Middle tlle t , i{.- ~wU' _ ~t Y~"e' .rY6 Y x o iri ff Yv.,~y - ~7 +~'i 0 lip 't.:. y. . f. 5,.. 1dM. 4 Y^ ; Four Mile Canyon Creek Legend Y"EUw Bk.P.MP-P-d Ptid[ sdrod - CMepn.b0 BM. RpuN Greenway Trail Project G " -MUtnu.eP.m 0~GU.d6k,l..PWMd _Oe$..tn.L. Ndgneup Bk. RaWU Rppmo N Existing Conditions ST.V 0.r ShcSe- MLd% Q. Peth PM..0 A ® 6m. c.tl P.e +o tl V -S1*C.m.Clpn ~ ErAemk7PM Crp.nrq Prapp..0 Bk.&Pkl.VW. Brldg. Br1%4Poma F..t ® Urdkgea Sat 6UR.p Muti Use P.Vr 0 315 630 7,260 I'M 2,520 ® Urdkp.n Propps.e 1.0 DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF THE PROJECT The Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenway project is located north of Kalmia Avenue and west of 28th Street, north of the Elks Lodge, primarily within the City's Elks Park. Portions of the project that are outside the park boundary are within existing easements or other City owned parcels. The entire project area is within the conveyance zone, the high hazard zone and the 100 year floodplain. The current project includes a path connection from the east side of 28th Street to 26ffi Street along the north side of the creek, with an at-grade connection to 26th Street and the replacement of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across Fourmile Canyon Creek connecting to the Elks Lodge and an existing path to Wonderland Creek. An existing multi-use path along Fourmile Canyon Creek ends on the east side of 28`h Street. Currently, as a result of significant use, a social trail exists along the north side of Fourmile Canyon Creek from 28th Street to 26th Street. An undeveloped underpass exists under 28th Street, which people use to connect to the social trail. There are several existing bicycle/pedestrian bridges over the creek that were constructed before the City purchased the park from the Elks Lodge. The existing bridges are not constructed to today's standards and are not the appropriate width. Both bridges will be removed and one will be replaced to comply with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASSHTO) guidelines for bikeways. A Agenda Item 6A - Page 4 low water crossing or bridge will also be constructed across Fourmile Canyon Creek to make the at-grade connection to 26th Street at the west end of the project. These improvements will be fully (100%) funded through a federal Safe Routes to School grant. 2.0 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT Improvements between 26th and 28th Streets through the Elks Park along Fourmile Canyon Creek have been shown in the Greenways CIP for the last ten years, starting in the 2000-2005 CIP. Proposed improvements are identified in the Greenways Master Plan, the Transportation Master Plan and the Fourmile Canyon Creek flood mitigation plan Phase A Report May 2007). Included are habitat improvements, a trail connection from 28th to 26 Streets, and a new roadway bridge with a grade-separated underpass crossing at 26 b Street, which also will provide high hazard flood mitigation.. The total cost for all of these improvements was estimated to be approximately $2 million in 2009 and assumed flood mitigation for the 100 year flood. During 2007 the city submitted an application for federal Transportation Improvement Plan funding for this project, but federal funds were not granted. In November 2009, City Council accepted a modified flood mitigation plan for Fourmile Canyon and Wonderland Creeks that focuses primarily on high hazard flood mitigation. As a result, the recommended flood mitigation improvements in this reach have been scaled back. In 2010, the City was awarded $198,230 by the Colorado Department of Transportation's Safe Routes to School program to construct the path connection between 28th and 26th Streets, with an improved underpass at 28th Street and an at-grade connection at 26th Street. An additional $75,000 was included in the 2010 Greenways budget to provide habitat and water quality enhancements. The flood improvements, and bridge replacement and grade-separated crossing at 26th Street and associated habitat improvements will be considered as a future project. The Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CHAP) is a formal review process to consider the impacts of public development projects. The purpose of the CHAP is to assess potential impacts of conceptual project alternatives in order to inform the selection and refinement of a preferred alternative. The CHAP provides the opportunity to balance multiple community goals in the design of a capital project by assessing a project against the policies outlined in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and department master plans. The Fourmile Canyon Creek project was identified as needing a CHAP when it encompassed a bigger scope of work. Despite the significantly reduced scope of the project, City staff is preparing a CEAP to document the public process and evaluate the alternatives for the at-grade path connection at 26th Street. It is estimated that there are 105 Crest View elementary and 72 Centennial middle school students who live in the neighborhoods of Palo Park and Four Mile Creek, which are within the walking distance boundary of these schools. The 28th Street corridor is a physical barrier between these neighborhoods and each school. A principal arterial, 28th Street carries a significant volume of traffic. The only protected crossings of 28th Street are at Palo Parkway and Jay Road. Both are at- grade signalized intersections that are not a direct route for most students walking or biking to school. There is no sidewalk along Jay Rd, another primary arterial street that carries a significant volume of traffic almost 900 vehicles during the a.m. peak hour alone. An improved Greenway multi-use path along Four Mile Canyon Creek through the Palo Park neighborhood ends on the Agenda Item 6A - Page 5 east side of 28th Street. A heavily used social trail exists west of 28th Street. Currently, students who choose to walk or bike to school must navigate a narrow single-track style dirt trail that is steep, windy, rocky and compromises the creek bank as well as personal safety of students at 28th Street and again near 26th Street. Thick brush also inhibits these pinch points since students are navigating along the creek bank. Students en route to Centennial Middle school cross the creek west of 28th Street using a sub-standard pedestrian bridge and low water crossing of an adjacent irrigation ditch. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES The scope of the CEAP focuses on alignments to construct a multi-use path connection from 28th to 26th Streets, with the understanding that a future project will include the replacement of the 26th Street bridge for high hazard flood mitigation and a pedestrian and bicycle underpass, with associated habitat improvements. A comparative evaluation of two at-grade alignment options to 26th Street are included below. A path alignment option through the Elks Park, which proposed a circuitous route around the perimeter of the park rather than a path adjacent to Four Mile Canyon Creek was also considered. This option was eliminated from further CEAP analysis in response to community input at the first public meeting primarily because it was less direct and did not meet a primary objective of the project, which is to complete a connection to the Wonderland Creek Greenway path. "T 7 +y C...• F At Grade Civsm9 I:Y S ~r r ..t`~~ + sy gate PZd -c 'Option 1 ^ - Connection to Future Underpass R Ter PI1n,--~ At Grade Crossing ti`,, =ye_ Option z C a PI to Ct `a v r. ..t, rte. k. 4~. ~ .7'91 - 'at L_< el ~`J,r 6 p `;a Wetlands Regulatory Area p Wetland city of ~1 0 City Owned Lider Inner Buffer Proposed Fourmile Creek Tr2al r~- NORTHµ-~ w~ , _ PubileAeeess Easement t Outer Buffer rcn = goo t•et Agenda Item 6A - Page 6 Comparison of Trail Connection Options to 26 Street Option 1 Option 2 Northside Southside Most direct route to 26Street i Enhanced user experience 1 1 Better connection to Agate Road i Reduced chance of trail flooding i Vehicle traffic separation Flood maintenance access 1 1 Less impact on trees i Less impact on wetlands i Less impact on adjacent properties i Lower conceptual-level cost i Better ADA access i 4.0 PERMITS, WETLANDS PROTECTION AND HABITAT ENHANCEMENT The project is entirely within the 100 year floodplain, conveyance zone and high hazard zone. While construction of the path itself would not require a City of Boulder floodplain permit, as long as the resulting grade change is less than 6 inches, replacement of the bridge and the construction of a low water crossing would require a flood permit. The majority of the path is outside the wetland area and inner and outer buffers. It is the goal of the project to avoid any construction within the mapped city wetland or wetland buffer. However, given the required path connections needed, portions of the project will be within these areas and a City of Boulder standard wetland permit is required if any portion of the project is within the wetland or inner buffer. The project will likely require the following permits: • City of Boulder Floodplain Development Permit ■ City of Boulder Wetlands Permit ■ United States Army Corps of Engineers 404 Wetlands Permit The project is located entirely within the City of Boulder and will therefore not require a County Areas and Activities of State Interest 1041 Review Application. A Greenways Riparian Habitat Assessment was completed in October 1999. Boulder Creek and all of the tributaries were evaluated on a reach by reach basis. This project encompasses two of the riparian habitat reaches, Fourmile Canyon Creek (FCC) 12 and FCC 14. Reach FCC 12 starts west of 26u' Street and continues almost to 28"' Street. FCC 14 starts just west of 28th Street and ends on the east side of 28`J' Street. The riparian habitat assessment evaluated the native species present, the structural diversity of the vegetation and the diversity of birds as an indicator of the quality of habitat. The results for these reaches were as follows: Agenda Item 6A - Page 7 Native Plant Habitat Evaluation Score Score Rank Scale 1-5 Description FCC12 4 123/126 1 Very Poor FCC 14 6 111/126 2 Poor Vegetative Structure Evaluation Score Score Rank Scale 1-5 Description FCC12 8.5 96/135 3 Good FCC14 11 41/135 3 Good Bird Diversity Score Score Rank Scale 1-5 Description FCC12 73 2 Poor FCC14 67 2 Poor Source: Greenways Riparian Habitat Assessment October 23, 1999 (Reach Map attached) The Riparian Habitat Assessment did not identify either of these reaches as potential habitat for Ute ladies' tresses orchid or the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. While the construction of a path in a riparian area has an incremental effect on the habitat, the majority of this project will be outside the riparian area and will therefore have a minimal negative impact. The replacement of non-native vegetation with natives could have a net positive impact. 5.0 PREFERRED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The southern at-grade connection to 26th Street (Option 2) was selected as the preferred option. While it requires a crossing of the creek, the path connection is outside the wetland buffer area. This option is located on city owned property rather than an easement on private property and would therefore have less of an impacted on adjacent property owners. The southern option also provides a better connection to Agate Road, which will be designated as a bike route. No real preference was voiced at the public meetings. The property owner to the north preferred the southern connection and the property owner south of the creek preferred the northern connection, but she did recognize that the southern connection made more sense. 6.0 PUBLIC INPUT TO DATE The Transportation and Utilities divisions of Public Works collaborated with the Department of Parks and Recreation on a public process to receive input on conceptual designs for constructing the multi-use path between 26th and 28th Street and the redevelopment of the Elks Park. Three public meetings were held (October 12, 2010, November 18, 2010 and December 14, 2010) to solicit public input regarding the park redevelopment and path location. Between 15 to 20 members of the public attending each meeting. At the first public meeting, the general alignment of the path was discussed. The wetland boundary and 25 and 50 ft buffer zones were presented. A general alignment north of Fourmile Canyon Creek was discussed with an alternative alignment circumventing the park along the north side suggested. It was agreed by all of the people present, that the circuitous route was inefficient, Agenda Item 6A - Page 8 had a greater impact on park functions and provided no added benefit. If the path were constructed along this alignment, the existing social trail on the north side of the creek would continue to be utilized. Staff presented the two conceptual alignments for completing an at-grade connection to 26th Street at the second meeting and identified option 2, the southern alignment, as the preferred alternative at the third meeting. All attendees at the third meeting expressed support for the staff recommended option. No input expressed that a circuitous path should be routed around the perimeter of the park 7.0 STAFF PROJECT MANAGER The public process, CEAP and alternatives analysis is being coordinated by Annie Noble in conjunction with Marni Ratzel from the Transportation Division and Perry Brooks from the Parks and Recreation Department. After city staff review by the CEAPers group and staff that have an interest in the Greenways Program, the CEAP will be routed to the Greenways Advisory Committee for review and recommendation for approval. The Transportation Division will be responsible for the design and construction of this project. 8.0 OTHER CONSULTANTS OR RELEVANT CONTACTS No outside consultants were utilized for the CEAP process or conceptual design. Greenways staff will continue to work with the Transportation Division and Parks and Recreation staff during the design and construction of this project. GOALS ASSESSMENT 1) Using the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and department master plans, describe the primary city goals and benefits that the project will help to achieve: a) Community Sustainability Goals - How does the project improve the quality of economic, environmental and social health with future generations in mind? The project will help to achieve multiple objectives and city goals by combining transportation, recreation, and aesthetic improvements to the Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenways corridor in the project area. Completing a missing link in the city's bikeway network will enable and encourage more people to commute by bike and walking, reducing vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Replacing non-native and invasive species with native species as part of the project plan and mitigation measures will enhance both habit and area aesthetics. b) BVCP Goals related to: ■ Community Design The Greenways system is an example of a positive community design feature. This project contributes to the Greenways program and meets multiple objectives for stream management. ■ Facilities and Services Agenda Item 6A - Page 9 The proposed project includes transportation, and environmental facilities. These facilities further the BVCP Utility and Parks and Trails policy goals. This path will be maintained by the City of Boulder Streets and Bikeways Maintenance. ■ Environment The project will enhance the environment of the Fourmile Canyon Creek corridor by providing water quality and habitat enhancement improvements. These improvements include replacing non-native and invasive species with native species. In addition, the trail connection will facilitate alternative modes of transportation and shift single occupant trips to biking and walking thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gases. This project will further the BVCP policy goals presented in the Preservation and Enhance Biodiversity and Native Ecosystems, Protect and Enhance the Quality of the Urban Environment, Protect Geologic Resources and Manage Natural Hazards, and Protect and Improve Water and Air Quality sections. Economy The trail will help facilitate use of alternative transportation for commuters and therefore help to reduce dependency on foreign oil. ■ Transportation This project will complete the trail connection between 28th and 26`h Streets. This connection will provide an important connection for trail users traveling east-west along Fourmile Canyon Creek, particularly school children traveling to Crestview Elementary School and Centennial Middle School. This project will further the BVCP multi-modal transportation goals. ■ Housing The trail will connect to several residential areas and will facilitate alternative transportation to these areas as well as areas east and west of the project. ■ Social Concerns and Human Services c) Describe any regional goals (potential benefits or impacts to regional systems or plans?) This project will make an important connection to the city's multi-use trail system that is connected to regional trail systems. 2) Is this project referenced in a master plan, sub-community or area plan? If so, what is the context in terms of goals, objectives, larger system plans, etc.? If not, why not? This path connection is shown in the North Boulder Sub-community Plan, the Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Final Plan, the Greenways Master Plan, BVCP trail map, and in the Transportation Master Plan. Completion of this project will fulfill these important plan components. 3) Will this project be in conflict with the goals or policies in any departmental master plan and what are the tradeoffs among city policies and goals in the proposed project alternative? (e.g. higher financial investment to gain better long-term services or fewer environmental impacts) Agenda Item 6A - Page 10 Project alternatives will have some impacts to wetlands. Every attempt will be made during the design phase to preserve as much of the wetland and wetland buffer area as is feasible along with complying with the recently adopted wetlands ordinance. 4) List other city projects in the project area that are listed in a departmental master plan or the CIP. Stream segments located upstream of the project area are identified for flood mitigation and bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the North Boulder Sub-community Plan, Fourmile Creek and Wonderland Creek Flood Mitigation Final Plan, the Greenways Master Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. An underpass (future) and multi-use trail segment at 26Th Street, along with high hazard flood mitigation improvements are identified in the Greenways Master Plan, Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Final Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. S) What are the major city, state and federal standards that will apply to the proposed project? How will the project exceed city, state or federal standards and regulations (e.g. environmental, health, safety or transportation standards)? The project's trail system will be designed to meet or exceed ADA requirements, meet or exceed city and national standards for the development of bikeway facilities, meet or exceed the city's wetland ordinance requirements, include water quality and habitat enhancements, meet or exceed Urban Drainage and Flood Control District standards and comply with all required city, state and federal permits. 6) Are there cumulative impacts to any resources from this and other projects that need to be recognized and mitigated? The project will result in temporary impacts to wetlands and habitat during construction that will be fully mitigated based on compliance with the city's wetland ordinance. IMPACT ASSESSMENT The following checklists table identifies potential short and long-term impacts from the project alternatives. + indicates a positive effect or improved condition - indicates a negative effect or impact 4 indicates no effect Checklist questions are answered following each table for all categories identified as having a potential + or - impact. The preferred alternative components are high lighted in yellow. Project Title: Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenways Improvement Project (L 4) O O 0 0 Agenda Item 6A - Page 11 Project Title: Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenways Improvement Project a a) N C G O O a n O O A. Natural Areas or Features 1. Disturbance to species, communities, habitat or ecosystems due to: a. Construction activities b. Native vegetation removal c. Human or domestic animal encroachment d. Chemicals (including petroleum products, fertilizers, O O pesticides, herbicides e. Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due to noise from use activities f_ Habitat removal g. Introduction of non-native plant species in the site O O landscaping h. Changes to groundwater or surface runoff O O i. Wind erosion MO O 2. Loss of mature trees or significant plants? O Riparian Floodplain 1. Encroachment upon the 100-year, conveyance or high O O hazard flood zones? 2. Disturbance to or fragmentation of a riparian corridor? _ _ C. Wetlands 1. Disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site? D Geology and Soils 1. a. Impacts to unique geological or physical features? O O b. Geological development constraints? O O c. Substantial changes in topography? O O d. Changes in soil or fill materials on the site? O O e. Phasing of earth work? O O E. Water Quality 1. Impacts to water quality from any of the following? a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other construction activities - b. Change in hardscape _ _ c. Change in site ground features O O d. change in storm drainage O O e. change in vegetation + + f. change in pedestrian and vehicle traffic + + g. pollutants O O 2. Exposure of groundwater contamination from excavation O O or um in ? F. Air Quality Agenda Item 6A - Page 12 Project Title; Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenways Improvement Project r N a C O O C. Q O O a. From mobile sources? + + b. From stationary sources? O O G. Resource Conservation 1. Changes in water use? O 2. Increases or decreases in energy use? + + 3. Generation of excess waste? O O H. Cultural I Historic Resources 1. a. Impacts to a prehistoric or archaeological site? O O b. Impacts to a building or structure over fifty years of O O age? c. impacts to a historic feature of the site? O O d. Impacts to significant agricultural land? O O 1. Visual Quality 1. a. Effects on scenic vistas or public views? O O b. Effects on the aesthetics of a site open to public view? O O c. Effects on views to unique geological or physical O O features? D. Changes in lighting? O O J. Safety 1. Health hazards, odors or radon? O O 2. Disposal of hazardous materials? O O 3. Site hazards? O O Physiological 1. Exposure to excessive noise? _ _ 2. Excessive light or glare? O O 3. Increase in vibrations? L. Services 1. Additional need for: a. Water or sanitary sewer services? O O b. Storm sewer / flood control features? O O c. Maintenance of pipes, culverts and manholes? O O d. Police services? O O e. Fire protection services? O O f. Recreation or parks facilities? + + g. Library services? O O h. Transportation improvements / traffic mitigation? + + i. Parking O O j. Affordable housing? O O k. Open space / urban open land? O O Agenda Item 6A - Page 13 Project Title: Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenways Improvement Project d 4) 0 0 C w a 0 0 1. Power or energy use? + + m. Telecommunications? O O n. Health care / social services? O O o. Trash removal or recycling services? O O M. Special Populations 1. Effects on: a. Persons with disabilities? + + b. Senior population? + + c. Children or youth? + + d. Restricted income persons + + e. People of diverse backgrounds (including Latino and + + other immigrants)? f. Neighborhoods + + g. Sensitive populations located near the project (e.g. + + schools, hospitals and nursing homes)? N. Econorny 1. Utilization of existing infrastructure? O O 2. Effect on operating expenses? _ _ 3. Effect on economic activity? O O 4. Impacts to businesses, employment, retail sales or city O O revenue? Agenda Item 6A - Page 14 CHECK LIST QUESTIONS Note: The following questions are a supplement to the LEAP checklist. Only checklist items having a - or + anticipated impact have questions answered in full. The following checklist items reflect both project phases. A. Natural Areas 1. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of significant: species, plant communities, wildlife habitats, or ecosystems via any of the activities listed below (significant species include any species listed or proposed to be listed as rare, threatened or endangered on federal, state or county lists) - See Below a. Construction activities b. Native vegetation removal c. Human or domestic animal encroachment d. Chemicals to be stored or used on the site (including petroleum products, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) e. Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due to noise from use activities) f. Introduction of non-native plant species in the site landscaping g. Changes to groundwater (including installation of sump pumps) or surface runoff (storm drainage, natural stream) on the site h. Potential for discharge of sediment to any body of water either in the short term (construction-related) or long term i. Potential for wind erosion and transport of dust and sediment from the site 2. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of mature trees or significant plants. - See Below If the potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that is relevant to the project: ■ A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize or mitigate identified impacts ■ A habitat assessment of the site, including: 1) a list of plant and animal species and plant communities of special concern found on the site; 2) a wildlife habitat evaluation of the site ■ Map of the site showing the location of any Boulder Valley Natural Ecosystem, Boulder County Environmental Conservation Area, or critical wildlife habitat - Not Applicable A comprehensive Greenways Riparian Habitat Assessment was completed in 1999 as part of the Greenways Master Plan. The riparian habitat was evaluated based on the quality of vegetation (native or non-native), the vegetative structure and the quality of the habitat based on the presence of bird species. Each stream reach was rated for each of these criteria, with a rating of very poor to excellent. r=ourmile Canyon Creek along the proposed project reach received the following ratings: ■ Vegetative Structure: Good ■ Native Plant Habitat: Very Poor to Poor ■ Bird Habitat: Poor Agenda Item 6A - Page 15 The aquatic habitat within the Greenways system was evaluated in a separate study and was rated on a scale of poor to excellent. Fourmile Canyon Creek along the proposed project reach rated Fair. The Greenways Master Plan also ranked the relative priority of each of the six Greenways objectives for each stream reach for the purpose of balancing conflicting interests at the time a project is being undertaken. Each objective was given a low to high rank based on specific criteria outlined in the Master Plan. Fourmile Canyon Creek along the proposed project reach received the following rankings: ■ Habitat: Medium ■ Water Quality: Medium ■ Transportation: High ■ Recreation: High ■ Flood: High The Reach Inventory in the Greenways Master Plan calls for a new trail connection between 26th and 28th Streets to be located outside the riparian area and north of the creek and a bicycle/pedestrian underpass combined with a new bridge and culvert at 26th Street. Flood mitigation and habitat improvements are also described in the Inventory. Farmers Ditch is noted as a historic structure. There are no known species listed or proposed to be listed as rare, threatened or endangered on federal, state or county lists along the proposed project reach. No suitable habitat for Preble's meadow jumping mouse or Ute ladies' tresses orchid was found. a. Construction Activities The project involves construction activities in and around Fourmile Canyon Creek, but the majority of the work will be outside the 50 foot wetland buffer. The layout of the path will be designed to minimize impacts to large trees. The City Forester will be consulted regarding the health of any existing trees that could be impacted and an evaluation will be conducted for the presence of nesting birds. Impacts to wetlands will be minimized and mitigation and enhancement of wetlands will be included as part of the project. b. Native Vegetation Only native vegetation will be used in site landscaping and revegetation. c. Human or domestic animal encroachment The project is located in a highly urbanized area. Increased use by humans or domestic animals is not anticipated to impact the wildlife that currently inhabits the area. d. Chemicals Neither project phases include the use of chemicals beyond those used during construction. Future habitat maintenance will not include the use of chemical treatments. e. Wildlife Displacement Construction activities will likely limit the use of the area by wildlife. It is anticipated that these species will return to the area following the construction period. f. Habitat Removal Agenda Item 6A - Page 16 The project will temporarily remove habitat during construction. Native vegetation will be used for site landscaping and it is anticipated that overall, habitat will be therefore be enhanced by the project. g. Introduction on Non-Native Species The project will landscape with native species. The project will facilitate increased Greenways Habitat maintenance to remove noxious and weed species and foster healthy native species. h. Changes in Groundwater or Surface Water No anticipated impacts. i. Wind Erosion No anticipated impacts. 2. Loss of Mature Trees or Significant Plants The removal of mature trees will be minimized. Only native vegetation will be used in site landscaping. There are no known sensitive species in the project corridor. B. Riparian Areas / Floodplains 1. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon the 100-year, conveyance or high hazard flood zones. The project improvements are entirely within these flood zones. The appropriate flood analysis and permits will be obtained after a preliminary design has been completed. 2. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon, disturb, or fragment a riparian corridor (this includes impacts to the existing channel of flow, stream banks, adjacent riparian zone extending 50 feet out from each bank, and any existing drainage from the site to a creek or stream) See Below If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that is relevant to the project: ' A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts to habitat, vegetation, aquatic life or water quality ■ A map showing the location of any streams, ditches and other water bodies on or near the project site ■ A map showing the location of the 100-year flood, conveyance, and high hazard flood zones relative to the project site Below is a figure that presents the existing floodplain conditions along the project reach, as well as the existing mapped wetlands and inner and outer buffer areas. The project will be within the 100- year flood, conveyance, and high hazard flood zones, but the majority of the path will be constructed outside the wetland buffer area as shown on the Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenway Project map. Mitigation would be done in compliance with the city's wetland permit requirements. It is anticipated that the completed project will enhance the riparian corridor and water quality enhancement features will improve water quality. Agenda Item 6A - Page 17 U) v 'r a~ C Inner Wetland BufTee L lei. YearfioodpiTn High Hmard Zone Outer Wetr& r;c R1 - " -conveyance Zone - ~ h ~ "jr" ' 1 3'~ t++ a t C. Wetlands 1. Describe any disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site that may result from the project. - See Above If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that is relevant to the project: ■ A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. ■ A map showing the location of any wetlands on or near the site. Identify both those wetlands and buffer areas which are jurisdictional under city code (on the wetlands map in our ordinance) and other wetlands pursuant to federal criteria (definitional). D. Geology and Soils 1. Describe any: a. impacts to unique geologic or physical features - No Impacts b. geologic development constraints or effects to earth conditions or landslide, erosion or subsidence - No Impacts c. substantial changes in topography or - No Impacts Agenda Item 6A - Page 18 d. changes in soil or fill material on the site that may result from the project - No Impacts If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that is relevant to the project: ■ A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. ■ A map showing the location of any unique geologic or physical features, or hazardous soil or geologic conditions on the site. E. Water Quality 1. Describe any impacts to water quality that may result from any of the following: a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other construction activities that will be involved with the project - Construction of the proposed project features will require clearing, excavation and grading. This work will be done in accordance with construction site best management practices. b. Changes in the amount of hardscape (paving, concrete, brick, or buildings) in the project area - The project includes construction of a concrete multi-use path. This feature will increase the impervious surface area along the project reach. Runoff from the trail will be routed to pervious surfaces prior to discharge to Fourmile Canyon Creek. c. Permanent changes in site ground features such as paved areas or changes in topography - See comment above regarding the concrete trail. d. Changes in the storm drainage from the site after project completion - No impact e. Change in vegetation - The project will disrupt I remove vegetation during construction. The project landscaping will use native plantings. f Change in pedestrian and vehicle traffic - The project includes extension of a multi-use path that will facilitate alternative modes of transportation and therefore help to decrease vehicle traffic. g. Potential pollution sources during and after construction (may include temporary or permanent use or storage of petroleum products) - Construction of the project features will require heavy equipment with associated petro-chemicals. Source control of these chemicals will be included as part of the construction specifications. There will be no use of chemicals following project completion (Greenways habitat maintenance is done without the use of chemicals). 2. Describe any pumping of groundwater that may be anticipated either during construction or as a result of the project. If excavation or pumping is planned, what is known about groundwater contamination in the surrounding area (I A mile radius of the project) and the direction of groundwater flow? No Impacts If any potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following that is relevant to the project: Agenda Item 6A - Page 19 ■ A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to water quality ■ Information from city water quality files and other sources (state oil inspector or the CDPHE) on sites with soil and groundwater impacts within 1.4 mile radius of the project ■ Groundwater levels from borings or temporary peizometers prior to proposed dewatering or installation of drainage structures F. Air Quality 1. Describe potential short or long term impacts to air quality resulting from this project. Distinguish between impacts from mobile sources (VMT/trips) and stationary sources (ADEN, HAPS). Construction of the project will result in temporary increases in emissions. The trail components of the project will, however, facilitate use of alternative transportation modes and therefore help to reduce overall city emissions. The project will not result in any stationary air quality impacts. G. Resource Conservation 1. Describe potential changes in water use that may result from the project. a. Estimate the indoor, outdoor (irrigation) and total daily water use for the facility - No Impacts b. Describe plans for minimizing water use on the site (Xeriscape landscaping, efficient irrigation system) - No Impacts 2. Describe potential increases or decreases in energy use that may result from the project. a. Describe plans for minimizing energy use on the project or how energy conservation measures will be incorporated into the building design The trail components of the project will facilitate use of alternative transportation modes and therefore help to reduce overall city emissions. The project will not result in any stationary air quality impacts. b. Describe plans for using renewable energy sources on the project or how renewable energy sources will be incorporated into the building design - No Impacts c. Describe how the project will be built to LEED standards - No Impacts 3. Describe the potential for excess waste generation resulting from the project. If potential impacts to waste generation have been identified, please describe plans for recycling and waste minimization (deconstruction, reuse, recycling, green points). - No Impacts H. Cultural / Historic Resources 1. Describe any impacts to: a. a prehistoric or historic archaeological site - No Impacts (see below) b. a building or structure over fifty years of age - No Impacts c. a historic feature of the site such as an irrigation ditch - See Below d. significant agricultural lands that may result from the project - No Impacts If any potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following: ■ A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts. Agenda Item 6A - Page 20 The Greenways Master Plan included a cultural resources survey along stream reaches. Farmers Ditch was identified as a cultural resource. Disturbance of the ditch is not anticipated as part of the installation of the path. 1. Visual Quality 1. Describe the effects on: a. scenic vistas or views open to the public - No Impacts b. the aesthetics of a site open to public view - No Impacts c. view corridors from the site to unique geologic or physical features that may result from the project - No Impacts J. Safety 1. Describe any additional health hazards, odors or exposure of people to radon that may result from the project - No Impacts 2. Describe measures for the disposal of hazardous materials - No Impacts 3. Describe any additional hazards that may result from the project (including risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) - No Impacts If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following: ■ A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts during or after site construction through management of hazardous materials or application of safety precautions. K. Physiological Well-being 1. Describe the potential for exposure of people to excessive noise, light or glare caused by any phase of the project (construction or operations) - See Below 2. Describe any increase in vibrations or odor that may result from the project - See Below If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following: ■ A description of how the project would avoid, minimize or mitigate identified impacts The project will result in increased vibrations and noise during construction. This disruption will be minimized by conducting construction only during weekdays during normal business hours. L. Services 1. Describe any increased need for the following services as a result of the project: a. Water or sanitary sewer services - No Impacts b. Storm sewer / flood control features No Impacts c. Maintenance of pipes, culverts and manholes No Impacts d. Police services - Possible Impacts e. Fire protection - No Impacts f. Recreation or parks facilities - Extension of the multi-use path will provide recreational opportunities g. Libraries - No Impacts Agenda Item 6A - Page 21 h. Transportation improvements / traffic mitigation - Extension of the multi-use path may increase the amount of alternative transportation miles and therefore increase the maintenance requirements i. Parking- No Impacts j. Affordable housing - No Impacts k. Open space / urban open land - No Impacts 1. Power or energy use - Extension of the multi-use path may increase the amount of alternative transportation miles and therefore decrease the use of oil and gas. m. Telecommunications - No Impacts n. Health care / social services - No Impacts o. Trash removal or recycling services The trail system will facilitate easier trash and debris removal. 2. Describe any impacts to any of the above existing or planned city services or department master plans as a result of this project (e.g. budget, available parking, planned use of the site, public access, automobile / pedestrian conflicts, views) - No Impacts M. Special Populations 1. Describe any effects the project may have on the following special populations: a. Persons with disabilities - See Below b. Senior populations - See Below c. Children or youth - See Below d. Restricted income persons - See Below e. People of diverse backgrounds - No Impacts f. Sensitive populations located near the project (e.g. adjacent neighborhoods or property owners, schools, hospitals, nursing homes) - See Below If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following: ■ A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impact ■ A description of how the proposed project would benefit special populations The proposed trail extension would be designed to ADA standards, providing a safe alternative mode of transportation for persons with disabilities, children and all other trail. Restricted income people could use the trail to commute via biking or walking instead of needing to rely on more expensive modes of transportation. N. Economic Vitality 1. Describe how the project will enhance economic activity in the city or region or generate economic opportunities. - No Impacts 2. Describe any potential impacts to: a. businesses in the vicinity of the project (ROW, access or parking) - No Impacts b. employment - No Impacts c. retail sales or city revenue and how they might be mitigated - No Impacts Agenda Item 6A - Page 22 Map of Habitat Reaches in Project Vicinity p Temereck Ave r-^ Bpd) Jar Rd C09 Surt 3 ` to ss >s Radn Agar Ra 4 a Emerald Rd ; _ AgO Premier PI ! Ju Rd aiedre Ct Piedre ACC 1 ~pC06 Cordel Middle School v'~oc~s e 8 ~ o ~y f ' a 1 L_j w (x s w.~... c.. n. Agenda Item 6A - Page 23 Staff Team Review of draft Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenway CEAP Monday, Dec. 20, 2010 (with project manager responses in red) Meeting discussion 1. Does staff agree with the impact assessment? Yes, it is a good, complete evaluation. 2. Does staff agree with the preferred alternative? Yes, staff agrees with the preferred alternative and does not see any potential conflicts with other CIP projects. Wetland regulatory issues have been identified in the CEAP. 3. Are there community issues or public process considerations that should be addressed? None identified. 4. Is the CEAP ready for board review? Provide more background information at the beginning of the document for those not familiar with the project. Also, mention in the Executive Summary or Project Description that the project is being coordinated with the design of the Elks Parks. Otherwise, yes, ready for board review. Revised. Written comments FAM: - There should be a map of what the alternate route would be if the bike path is flooded by the creek. Attached - last page. - Extension of the multi-use path may increase the amount of alternative transportation miles and therefore increase the maintenance requirements. Peter Rosato estimated the annual maintenance cost to be $1,000 for bikeway maintenance and $600 for graff iti. Parks and Recreation: - In general we agree with the alignment as recommended. - The public process has been going very well between the Greenways trail project and our adjacent Park design for the Elks Neighborhood Park. - Additional comments from Parrs (Dec. 21, 2010) are as follows: The Parks and Recreation Department staff has been working jointly with Greenways and Transportation staff to develop a public process for the conceptual level plan for the proposed Four Mile Canyon Creek trail alignment and the Elks Neighborhood Park improvements. We have also reviewed the draft CEAP followed by a discussion today with Annie Noble to clarify specific details in association with the proposed trail alignment, and habitat and wetland evaluations for the proposed Safe Routes to School trail project. In addition to the questions and responses noted below, the Parks and Recreation Department acknowledges that both the Public Works and Parks and AGENDA ITEM # 6A PAGE 2.-T Recreation Department have jointly advanced the trail and Elks Neighborhood Park development and that a high degree of coordination and public involvement has occurred and will continue to occur throughout the design development and construction phase for both projects. Secondly, the Parks and Recreation Department strongly supports the proposed trail alignment as proposed by the Greenways staff. We recognize that the proposed trail alignment through the Elks Neighborhood Park area represents a balance to avoid sensitive wetland areas along Four Mile Canyon Creek while allowing for programmed park area in the Elks Neighborhood Park area. We also agree that the preferred alignment near 26th St. represents the optimal approach given the limited impact on existing trees and the grading issues. The proposed trail alignment accomplishes an important balance to provide for a paved multi-use path while avoiding large, healthy, mature trees and habitat along the riparian corridor area. Finally, we understand that several technical design development issues will continue to be evaluated as the design process advances, including; easement verification, recommendations for appropriate vegetative species, irrigation systems design for required plant establishment periods and tree trimming and/or removal as needed to accommodate the proposed trail. Per a conversation today, it is understood that the Public Works Department will be responsible for maintaining the new hard surface trail section including snow removal and that further discussions may be required to finalize other related maintenance issues associated with periodic vegetation trimming and trash removal of debris along the trail section. These issues should not affect the CEAP process but should be clarified between the two departments to minimize any possible confusion. - Additional comments from Parks (Dec. 17, 2010) are as follows: Pg 5: According to the easement map that we have for this area, the city easement layer is incorrect. Matt will provide me with the parking lot easement, which I will forward to Tanya Ariowitsch to make sure it is included in the city's GIS layer. The CEAP attachments will not be updated to show this easement, as the intent was only to show bike/ped access easements for the purpose of evaluating the path alignment. Pg 6: Are they trying to have the trail stay out of the wetland buffer area? If so, then how does that affect park plans for this area? Maybe none since we are developing but does it take away viable turf area for the park? The path alignment shown conceptually in the CEAP within the park was coordinated with staff from the Parks Department (Perry, Mike and Keith) through three public meetings and is a balance between impacts to park turf and impacts to the wetland buffer area. The intent is to construct the path outside the wetland buffer where possible. Parks staff did not feel this alignment impacted the park functions. pg 6: A map showing the habitat reaches would be helpful. Will be added to the CEAP document. AGENDA ITEM it A PAGE-; Pg 7. The only wildlife/plant references are for endangered species and the perception then is that there is no negative affect to local species that occupy the area. Known Great-horned owls nest in the area, along with other likely smaller bird species. While habitat itself may not be impacted, the buffer effect of trail corridor use commonly found along Greenways may have a detrimental effect. I don't see any information regarding wildlife linkages, or habitat corridor functionality for this stretch. The Greenways Habitat Assessment did not evaluate wildlife linkages or corridor functionality. The Assessment considered vegetative structure, the native vegetation present and the presence of bird species as an indicator of habitat quality. While the vegetative structure ranked "good", the native vegetation and bird diversity scores were poor. Native vegetation will be planted as part of this project which will enhance the riparian habitat. Pg 8: Under the section of Environment, replacing non-native with native species is pretty generic. What species are being referenced (plant, animal, aquatic)? Native riparian plant species will be planted. Pg 9, #6: Great-horned owls are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Species Act of 1918 (includes any bird, nest, part, egg, etc). Citizen reports state that there are active nests in the area. Should they be within the zone of construction, what is the proposed action to mediate? It is anticipated that this project will be constructed in the fall of 2011. It is my understanding that the nesting period for Great-horned owls is December to April. Transportation staff will walk the site with Parks staff to perform an inventory of nesting birds prior to construction if construction is anticipated to fall within the nesting period. Pg 10, Chart: (A-g) How can introduction of non-native species in the site landscaping be a positive effect? The intention is to not introduce non-native species. Pg 10, Chart: (A-#2) Loss of mature trees leads to no effect? (nesting, wildlife benefits, etc. will be lost). The intention is to not impact mature trees Pg 12, Chart (L-o): Trash removal or recycling services, no effect? For which department? (Not for Parks). Trash receptacles are not being considered as part of the path project, but will be considered as part of the park development. Pg 13: Discussions on habitat. If the GRHA shows poor habitat, what steps will be taken to improve or enhance the habitat, as stated on Pg 8. Native riparian vegetation will be planted as part of the path constnsction project. Pg 14: Will aquatic habitat be improved or enhanced as part of this project? There will be minimal impact (positive or negative) on aquatic habitat. AGENDA ITEM # 4~1_. PAGE /20 Pg 14: (a): If nesting birds are found, what is the procedure to mediate with the construction project? If the Forester designates large, mature trees as worth preserving and impacts the layout of the trail, how to proceed? Trail construction will be delayed or the trail will be rerouted to avoid impacts to trees. Pg 14, (d): Remove statement about not using chemical treatments in the future. If the non-natives are that bad, then some use of chemicals may be necessary to control. Acknowledged and will change in CEAP document. Pg 14: Will construction be planned or delayed if wildlife is confirmed as using the area as nesting habitat? See Above. Pg 15: What other steps beside native vegetation, which takes several years to get established, be utilized? Temporary irrigation will be provided in coordination with the park development. Pg 19, (L-e): police services: dog enforcement? Regulatory signing, etc. Fire access? Possible impacts to police and other services may result from the construction of the path Staff team members in attendance: Annie Noble, Project Manager, Utilities Division; Marni Ratzel, Transportation Division; Katie Knapp, Land Use Review Division; Marie Zuzack, Comprehensive Planning Division Staff team members who submitted comments before the meeting: Keith Walzak, Parks and Recreation; Joe Castro, FAM AGENDA ITEM #R__-6A-. PAGE a-7 Fourmde Canyon Creek Greenway Project - Property Ownership gate Rd vCirade Cl»ss" " i Y1 p fits 91 cannedlorr to #c.~ J Futva Vndoepaos r,It s"'fsf 2 y uqa'. Dior P!{>t;: ~s Ai Grade tf'rr>c opbm a r i a PlcifraCCd j "ism J route ~en Pi s '!t- rip pax ys, \ 'A - ~ - .4 dl Mato Wadands ~Zeg~d&Wy Area ry wKbod City 0*ned lnrwBufhr PropowdFCurmdeCreekT(EA Pt)bLc Access Easement Outer BuEer _ Comments from Mark Gershman, Open Space and Mountain Parks: OSMP appreciates and supports Greenways commitment to use native species for revegetation of disturbed areas. However, OSMP staff is also concerned about the potential spread of exotic species which may become established on the site as a result of disturbance. One of the reasons that these reaches received a low habitat and vegetation scores was because of the number of exotic and invasive plant species in the area. As we have seen from a recent project in the Fourmile Creek channel/riparian areas, the combination of ground disturbing activities and an area with a large load of exotic plant species (and their seeds) can result in quick and severe infestation. Such infestations create more weed seeds, interfere with native revegetation, and result in the dispersal of weeds downstream-in this case to OSMP-managed lands. OSMP recommends that Greenways commit to developing a strong weed management plan in advance of ground disturbing activities to reduce the likelihood and severity of weed infestations resulting from this project as part of the mitigation measures described in the CEAP document. The oversight of the design and construction of this path will be done by the Transportation Division as part of their Safe Routes to School Funding. This information will be passed along to the Project Manager in that work group. The intention of the conceptual plan is to minimize impacts in the riparian corridor by constructing the path outside the wetland buffer area where possible (see attached conceptual plan). A wetlands permit will be required for this project as a minimal disturbance in the inner aGwA rpm # 6A , PAGE wetland buffer will be necessary at the 28th Street underpass. The project also requires two crossings of the creek; to replace an existing bike/ped bridge and to construct a new low water crossing near 26th Street. Where possible the path will be cosntructed outside the wetland buffer. During construction storm water and riparian best management practices will be followed. As part of the wetland permit process, monitoring reports will be filed for 5 years following the construction. This area will be added to the Greenways habitat crew workplan for on-going maintenance. The first paragraph of the CEAP document states: "In addition to the Safe Route to School funding, $75,000 was included in the Greenways budget to provide habitat improvements. The replacement of the 26'4 Street bridge and flood mitigation improvements along Fourmile Canyon Creek in this reach will be considered as a future project. This CEAP focuses only on the path connection portion of the project. 41 While funding for habitat improvements is identified, there is no commitment to consider such improvements as part of a future project. The replacement of the 26 1h St bridge and flood mitigation improvements however are clearly called out for the future. I would recommend including the habitat improvements among the components of future projects along Fourmile Creek. The CEAP has been modified to incorporate this language when referencing future projects components. Other comments in the CEAP include recommendations to: • Acknowledge and describe the cumulative impacts of construction to Fourmile Creek (and the tributaries included in the Greenways Master Plan) and the increment of impact associated with this project. LEAP modified to incorporate this information. • Clarify that complete avoidance of wetlands or the inner buffer is the goal of the project or acknowledge that a wetland permit will be required because as proposed the trail would enter the inner buffer area of a mapped wetland. (on p5, the CEAP document states: 'However, a City of Boulder standard wetland permit is required if any portion of the project is within the wetland or inner buffer."The map on the preceding page makes it pretty clear that the trail is being proposed will affect the inner buffer and perhaps the wetland.) CEAP modified to incorporate this information. • Consider updating the information from the habitat studies (now over ten years old), and making that information more relevant to the planned mitigation acknowledged AGENDA ITEM # ~t~-_ PAGE 2~ • Integrate anticipated mitigation requirements of the wetlands permit (or establish mitigation commitments for trees and other natural features that will be affected by the project. This will be completed as part of the design of this project. &r;r-mm tTFN+ # PAS