Deer River Estates Project Biophysical Impact Assessment Report Prepared for Deer River Projects Inc November 2011 Prepared by 207 Edgebrook Close NW Calgary, Alberta T3A 4W5 Canada Phone (403) 270-0276 Fax (403) 241-8679 Email: [email protected] Deer River Estates November 2011 List of Contributors Senior Review & Project Management Dr. Troy Whidden, P. Biol. Field Surveys Ms. Abbie Stewart, M.Sc., P. Biol. Ms. Sarah Hecthenthal, M.Sc., P. Biol. Dr. Elizabeth Dickson, P. Biol. Mr. Martin Baker Figures & Mapping Mr. Zoran Stanojevic, M.F. Report Writing Ms. Abbie Stewart, M.Sc., P. Biol. Ms. Sarah Hecthenthal, M.Sc., P. Biol. Dr. Elizabeth Dickson, P. Biol. MSES Inc. Page ii Deer River Estates November 2011 Executive Summary Management and Solutions in Environmental Science Inc (MSES) was requested to conduct a Biophysical Impact Assessment (BIA) in support of the preparation of a proposed residential development at the Deer River Estates Project Area (Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11 of Township 38, Range 25, W4M). Government databases were searched to determine if any species of special management concern could potentially occur in the Project Area (PA). The objectives of the biophysical surveys were to evaluate the current environmental conditions by capturing information on wildlife presence/absence and delineating vegetation communities. The PA is located East of Red Deer, Alberta, on portions of Sections 2, 3, 10, and 11 of Township 38, Range 25, W4M (see Figure 1). The PA is an approximately 900 acre parcel of land and contains agricultural (disturbed) and some non-agricultural vegetation communities (primarily aspen forest). The land is heavily disturbed by cattle. Two escarpments run approximately northwest-southeast across the subject lands. Native vegetation communities remaining on the property are located along the river (herbaceous shoreline, river shrub, and poplar forest), on south-facing slopes (native grassland), along drainages, at the bases of slopes and areas proposed to be cleared (aspen forest) and within cultivated fields and pasture (wetlands) (Figure 3-1). These native vegetation communities could be lost to clearing and changes to the landscape affecting hydrology. Loss or change of quality in rare plant habitat could decrease the ability of rare plants to survive on the property. The habitats for the rare plant species identified in the 2011 surveys (Gratiola neglecta) were seasonal ponds, causing particular concern for this wetland type. However, there is always the potential that the property hosts other, as yet unidentified rare plant species. Preserving the existing diversity of vegetation communities is of concern. Determination of prairie wetland classes was adapted from Steward and Kantrud (1971), who classify wetlands according to the vegetational zone occurring in the central or deeper portion of the wetland, occupying at least 5% of the wetland. Wetland plants and wetland types also were surveyed between 13 – 15 June and 16 – 19 August, 2011. High levels of rainfall occurred during the spring and summer of 2011, resulting in prolonged water retention in some wetlands. The designation of wetland type was based both on field observations of plant species composition and water levels this year, and on water levels deduced by aerial photograph interpretation from a drier year. All wetlands within the PA were less than 50 acres in size; thus, all qualify as ponds. A variety of wetlands were observed in the PA: 4 Treed Wetlands, 12 Class 1 - Ephemeral Wetlands; 9 Class II - Temporary Wetlands, 11 Class III - Seasonal Wetlands and 1 Class IV – Semi-permanent Wetland. Any wetland modification or removal may require wetland compensation planning. Amphibian species noted in the PA during the amphibian and yellow rail surveys included the boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris maculata) and the wood frog (Rana sylvatica). These species are listed as „Secure‟ in Alberta (ASRD 2010). No yellow rails were observed. Fish & Wildlife Division recommends that there be no industrial activity within 100 m of water bodies (wetlands, ponds, creeks, rivers, lakes, including dry water bodies), or within 100 m of the crest of any coulee associated with riparian areas MSES Inc. Page iii Deer River Estates November 2011 (ASRD 2011). However, many cities and towns in Alberta typically utilize a 30m setback from wetlands that are to be retained. During bird surveys, 29 bird species were recorded in five broad habitat types or habitat combinations, and another 12 species were recorded as incidentals. Most of the species that were detected were associated with riparian habitats near the Red Deer River or the forested upland areas at the centre of the property. The majority of the species observed are passerines, with the exception of three raptor species and several waterfowl and shorebird species. Nine of the observed species are listed in Alberta as „Sensitive‟ (ASRD 2010), and one species (barn swallow) is listed federally as Threatened (COSEWIC 2011). Bird species of management concern identified during the field program include the Baltimore oriole (Icterus galbula), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), least flycatcher (Empidonax minimus), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), western tanager (Prianga ludoviciana), western wood-peewee (Contopus sordidulus), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), Swainson`s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhychos). Avoiding the breeding bird restricted activity period (April 15 – July 30) for all vegetation clearing activities or disturbance of existing buildings is a key mitigation measure for these species. In addition, limiting all clearing and construction activities to outside of the raptor breeding season is recommended (March 15 – July 30). Project activities within 1000m of an active prairie or peregrine falcon nest should be avoided. Mammals observed in the PA during the pellet group survey included deer (mule or white-tailed). A single mule deer was observed on site. This species in listed as „Secure‟ in Alberta (ASRD 2010). Other incidental mammal wildlife observations included ungulate antler rubs, deer tracks, canid scat and call, and beaver sign. A Grassland and a Parkland Ecologically Significant Area (ESA) is located south of the PA across the Red Deer River and another Parkland ESA runs through the south portion of the PA. These ESAs are all of national significance (ACIMS 2009). A search of the provincial Fish and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS) has identified that critical ungulate winter range occurs in the PA. The FWMIS search also indicated that records of prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines) have been recorded along the Red Deer River at the southern border of the PA. These species are listed as being „Sensitive‟ and „At Risk‟, respectively, by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD). A search of the Alberta Conservation Information Management System (ACIMS) indicated that there were no occurrences of any vegetation species of conservation concern in the vicinity of the Project. No rare plants were observed during the spring vegetation surveys (June 5 and 6, 2010). However, this does not preclude the potential for such species to occur in this area as some rare plants may appear later during the season (late summer). Potential project interactions on wildlife and vegetation were assessed qualitatively. Key concerns include: 1) loss of native vegetation; 2) introduction, establishment and spread of non-native or weedy plant species; 3) loss of wildlife habitat and reduced habitat quality; 4) increased wildlife mortality, and MSES Inc. Page iv Deer River Estates November 2011 5) disruption of wildlife movement. Vegetation clearing will likely have a low effect on native vegetation and loss of wildlife habitat because most clearing will occur on the upland areas where there is likely low abundance of native vegetation patches and these areas likely do not represent high quality wildlife habitat. Mitigation measures are expected to minimize dust accumulation, introduction of non-native and invasive species into newly disturbed areas adjacent to the PA, and sources of wildlife mortality. Physical barrier effects and sensory disturbance effects from the disturbances in adjacent properties likely already effect some wildlife movement through the landscape. However, Project designs indicate that the wooded area around the ravine will be considered an environmental reserve area, which could facilitate continued movement of wildlife through the ravine area to more undeveloped areas to the west of the PA. Overall, project interactions with vegetation and wildlife are predicted to be low. MSES Inc. Page v Deer River Estates November 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 1 2.1 Location ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Climate ................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Physiographic Description