The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUN COMMUNITIES - THE FOOTHILLS - PDP210001 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ECS REPORT Denver • Durango • Hotchkiss • Idaho www.eroresources.com Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado Prepared for— Sun Communities, Inc. 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 200 Southfield, Michigan 48034 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 (303) 830-1188 ERO Project #10761 October 26, 2020 Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 i ERO Resources Corporation Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ii Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Project Area Location ............................................................................................................. 2 Project Area Description ........................................................................................................ 2 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ............................................................................................ 6 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Project Area Conditions ................................................................................................................... 6 Description of Wetlands and Other Waters ..................................................................................... 8 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species .................................................................... 9 Possible Effects .............................................................................................................................. 12 Other Species of Concern ..................................................................................................... 12 Black-Tailed Prairie Dog ................................................................................................................. 12 Western Burrowing Owl ................................................................................................................ 13 Raptors and Migratory Birds .......................................................................................................... 14 Other Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 15 Views .................................................................................................................................. 15 Impacts and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 15 References ........................................................................................................................... 16 Tables Table 1. Wetland area and Cowardin classification. ....................................................................... 8 Table 2. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in the project area or potentially affected by projects in the project area. ........................................ 9 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5 Figure 3. Proposed Impacts ........................................................................................................... 11 Appendices Appendix A Photo Log Appendix B Wetland Delineation Datasheets Appendix C Approved Jurisdictional Determination Appendix D U.S. Fish and Wildlife No Concerns Letter Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ii ERO Resources Corporation Executive Summary Sun Communities, Inc. (Sun Communities) retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide an Ecological Characterization Study for the proposed 6750 College Avenue project in Larimer County, Colorado (project area). ERO assessed the project area for potential wetlands and waters of the U.S., potential federally listed threatened and endangered species habitat, migratory birds and active nests, and other wildlife. Below is a summary of the resources found at the project area and recommendations or future actions necessary based on the current site conditions and regulations. The natural resources and associated regulations described in this report are valid as of the date of this report and may be relied upon for the specific use for which it was prepared by ERO under contract to Sun Communities. Because of their dynamic natures, site conditions and regulations should be reconfirmed by a qualified consultant before relying on this report for a use other than that for which it was specifically prepared. Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. – Two wetlands (Wetland 1 and Wetland 2) and an unnamed ditch occur in the project area. On January 28, 2020, the Corps determined that Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and the Unnamed Ditch are not considered waters of the U.S. and are not jurisdictional (Appendix C). Because Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and the Unnamed Ditch are not waters of U.S., a Section 404 permit is not required for any work within those features. The proposed project would result in impacts on 0.386 acre of low-quality wetlands and 1.12 acres of moderate-quality wetlands. To mitigate for the impacts on 0.386 acre of low-quality wetlands and 1.12 acres of moderate-quality wetlands, Sun Communities is proposing to construct two stormwater ponds approximately 2.89 acres in size and conduct noxious weed control in the undisturbed portions of Wetland 1 to control the hairy willowherb. The storm water ponds would help reduce sedimentation and wetlands would likely become established within the ponds. The stormwater ponds would be subject to routine maintenance. Threatened and Endangered Species – The project area does not contain habitat for any federally listed species. On February 3, 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) made a No Concerns determination for the proposed project (Appendix D). Prairie Dogs – The project area contains active black-tailed prairie dog colonies north and south of Wetland 1. If prairie dog removal becomes necessary, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recommends removing them in a humane manner before any earthwork or construction takes place. Sun Communities is proposing to use the City of Fort Collins Fee-In-Lieu program to mitigate for the impacts on 24.015 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. To prevent future human-wildlife conflict with prairie dogs on portions of the project area that would border active prairie dog colonies to the southeast, Sun Communities is proposing to install a combination of fencing and tall grasses to prevent dispersal into the development. Burrowing Owls – Burrowing owls could be impacted by the project if work would occur within the CPW-recommended 150-foot buffer of any prairie dog burrows, including burrows within 150 feet from the project area (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2008). If work would occur within the recommended buffer of any burrow during the breeding season (March through October), a burrowing owl survey should be conducted. If owls are present in the project area, activities should be restricted within 150 feet of nest burrows until the owls have migrated from the site, which can be determined through monitoring. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 iii ERO Resources Corporation Migratory Birds – Migratory birds, including raptors, and any active nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. ERO did not observe any active nests in the project area during the 2020 or 2019 site visits. ERO observed a potential red-tailed hawk nest south and outside of the project area. Additionally, the cattail wetlands in the project area are potential red-winged blackbird nesting habitat. The Denver Field Office of the Service (2009) and Colorado Department of Transportation (2011) have identified the primary nesting season for migratory birds in eastern Colorado as occurring from April 1 through August 31. However, some birds, such as the red-tailed hawk and great horned owl, can nest as early as February or March. Because of variability in the breeding seasons of various bird species, ERO recommends a nest survey be conducted within one week prior to construction to determine if any active nests are present in the project area so they can be avoided. If active nests are found, any work that would destroy the nests could not be conducted until the birds have vacated the nests. If possible, ground-clearing activities should occur outside of the April 1 through August 31 migratory bird breeding season. If construction activities would occur during the migratory bird breeding season, a nest survey should be conducted immediately prior to construction. Other Wildlife –The project area occurs within mule deer, white-tailed deer, mountain lion, and black bear overall range. No other sensitive species occur within the project area that would be significantly adversely affected by the proposed project. The project area provides marginally suitable habitat for a variety of wildlife including coyote, fox, and raccoon. The prairie dog colonies within the project area provide prey for raptors and other wildlife, and it is likely raptors forage in these areas. The prairie dog colonies also likely provide burrows for cottontail rabbits, bull and rattlesnakes and other ground dwelling wildlife. However, because the project area is bounded on all sides by residential development, and due to the lack of vegetation structure within the project area, it is unlikely the project area provides significant habitat for these species or other wildlife. Any wildlife using the project area have likely become adapted to human disturbance due to the proximity of extensive human development. Overall, surrounding and continuing development contributes to a decline in the number and diversity of wildlife species nearby and to a change in species composition. Views – The area surrounding the project consists entirely of residential development. Due to the project area’s location in a large depression, portions of the Front Range are only visible in the eastern half of the project area. ERO Project #10761 1 ERO Resources Corporation Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado October 26, 2020 Introduction Sun Communities retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) for a proposed development project at 6750 College Avenue in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (project area). On March 16, 2020, Hidde Snieder with ERO conducted a site visit from public roads to assess potential natural resources in the project area (2020 site visit). ERO previously assessed the project for potential wetlands and federally listed threatened and endangered species habitat (2019 site visit). During the 2020 site visit, activities included a review of the wetland quality, and identification of other natural resources that might affect development of the project area. This ECS provides information on existing site conditions and resources, as well as current regulatory requirements related to those resources. ERO assumes the landowner or project proponent is responsible for obtaining all federal, state, and local permits for construction of the project. Section 3.4.1 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code requires an ECS for development sites that contain, or are located within 500 feet of, an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feature of the City of Fort Collins Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map or that are discovered during site evaluations associated with the development review process. Several natural habitat features were previously mapped or were encountered within 500 feet of the project area, including aquatic and wetland habitats (City of Fort Collins 2020). As required under Article 3, this ECS describes the following: (a) the wildlife use of the area showing the species of wildlife using the area, the times or seasons that the area is used by those species, and the “value” (meaning feeding, watering, cover, nesting, roosting, and perching) that the area provides for such wildlife species; (b) the boundary of wetlands in the area and a description of the ecological functions and characteristics provided by those wetlands; (c) any prominent views from or across the site; (d) the pattern, species, and location of any significant native trees and other native site vegetation; (e) the pattern, species, and location of all nonnative trees and vegetation that contribute to the site’s ecological, shade, canopy, aesthetic, and cooling value; (f) the bank, shoreline, and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water on the site; (g) areas inhabited by or frequently used by Sensitive and Specially Valued Species; (h) special habitat features; Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 2 ERO Resources Corporation (i) wildlife movement corridors; (j) the general ecological functions provided by the site and its features; (k) any issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological character of the area; and (l) any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of the development project on natural habitats and features. Project Area Location The project area is in Section 13, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1). The UTM coordinates of the approximate center of the project area are 494049mE, 4482426mN of NAD 83 Zone 13N. The longitude/latitude of the project area is 105.070224°W/40.492514°N. The elevation of the project area is approximately 5,000 feet above sea level. Photos are included in Appendix A, and photo points are shown on Figure 2. Project Area Description The project area is generally southeast of the intersection of South College Avenue and East Trilby Road in Fort Collins, Colorado (Figure 1). The project area is generally bounded by residential development on all sides (Figure 2). Additionally, the majority of the project area occurs in depression compared to the surrounding area. The majority of the project area consists of disturbed uplands, which was historically used for horse grazing and is currently disturbed as a result of active prairie dog colonies. Due to the active prairie dog colonies, vegetative cover is low in the majority of the project area and consists primarily of a mixture of nonnative upland species. Dominant species in the uplands include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), kochia (Bassia scoparia), and redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) (Photos 1, 2, and 3). A large wetland (Wetland 1) transects the project area and appears to be supported by runoff from surrounding development (Figure 2). The western portion of Wetland 1 consists of a narrow swale with sparse wetland vegetation that has been disturbed by grazing and nearby prairie dogs. Vegetation in the western portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by sporadic patches of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Baltic rush (Juncus articus), and curly dock (Rumex crispus) (Photo 4). The eastern portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia) (Photo 5). Other prevalent species in the eastern portion of Wetland 1 include hairy willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), a List A Colorado Noxious Weed, and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), a List B Colorado Noxious Weed. A second wetland (Wetland 2) occurs in the southeastern corner of the project area in what appears to be a manmade detention pond (Photo 6). A swale occurs along the eastern boundary of the project area and appears to periodically convey flows from Wetland 1 to the north of the project area (Photo 7). The project area lacks tree and shrub vegetation with the exception of several small Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) trees. A stand of plains cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides) occurs along an unnamed ditch approximately 200 feet southwest of the project area, and a potential red-tailed Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 3 ERO Resources Corporation hawk nest (based on nest size and location and the presence of an adult red-tailed hawk) occurs in one of the cottonwood trees (Photo 8). Project Area Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc.File: 10761 Figure 1.mxd (GS)March 25, 2020 ± Figure 1Vicinity Map6750 College Avenue Ecological Characterization Study Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2019 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 1,500750Feet LocationPath: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\ECS Figures\10761 Figure 1.mxdSection 13, T6N, R69W; 6th PM UTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 494049mE, 4482426mN Longitude 105.070224°W, Latitude 40.492514°N USGS Loveland, CO QuadrangleLarimer County, Colorado &&&&&&&&[b College AvenueTrilby Road Debra DriveKevin DriveRick Drive AutumnRidgeDriveWetland 1 (4.522 ac) Wetland 2 (1.041 ac) Unnamed Ditch (0.032 ac) P8 P3 P4 P2 P5 P6 P7 P1 Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc.File: 10761 Figure 2.mxd (GS)March 27, 2020 ± Figure 2Existing Conditions6750 College Avenue Ecological Characterization Study 0 350175FeetPath: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\ECS Figures\10761 Figure 2.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, July 2019 [b Potential Red-tailed Hawk Nest &Photo Point Flow Direction Ditch Swale Upland Vegetated Swale Active Prairie Dog Colony Low-Quality Wetland (0.386 ac) Moderate-Quality Wetland (5.177 ac) Ordinary High Water Mark (0.032 ac) Project Area Boundary Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 6 ERO Resources Corporation Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Background The Clean Water Act (CWA) protects the chemical, physical, and biological quality of waters of the U.S. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Regulatory Program administers and enforces Section 404 of the CWA. Under Section 404, a Corps permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and other waters of the U.S. (streams, ponds, and other waterbodies). The repeal of the 2015 waters of the U.S. rule became effective on December 23, 2019, and the entire U.S. has reverted to Rapanos guidelines for defining waters of the U.S. Rapanos guidelines state that the Corps considers traditionally navigable waters (TNWs), wetlands adjacent to a TNW, and tributaries to TNWs that are relatively permanent waters (RPWs) and their abutting wetlands jurisdictional waters. Other wetlands and waters that are not TNWs or RPWs would require a significant nexus evaluation to determine their jurisdiction. A significant nexus evaluation assesses the flow characteristics and functions of a tributary and its adjacent wetlands to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of downstream TNWs. Additional changes will result when the 2019 rule is published (expected early this year). However, both the repeal and the 2019 rule will be subject to court challenges. Project Area Conditions Streams and Open Water On December 11, 2019, Hidde Snieder with ERO surveyed the project area for potential isolated wetlands, jurisdictional wetlands, and other waters of the U.S. (2019 site visit). Prior to the 2019 site visit, ERO reviewed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle topographic maps and aerial photography to identify mapped streams and areas of open water that could indicate wetlands or waters of the U.S. On January 10, 2020 ERO surveyed the remainder of the project area that was covered in snow during the 2019 site visit. ERO conducted the wetland delineation following the methods for routine on-site wetland determinations in areas of less than 5 acres as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and used methods in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0) (Corps 2010) to record data on vegetation, soils, and hydrology on routine determination forms (Appendix B). The Corps defines wetlands as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.2(c)). Wetland boundaries were determined by a visible change in vegetation community, soils, topographic changes, and other visible distinctions between wetlands and uplands. The wetland indicator status of plant species was identified using the National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2016), taxonomy was determined using Flora of Colorado (Ackerfield 2015) and Colorado Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 7 ERO Resources Corporation Flora: Eastern Slope (Weber and Wittmann 2012), and nomenclature was determined using The PLANTS Database (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2019). Commonly occurring plant species in the project area, including the wetland indicator status, are listed in Appendix B. If present, hydric soils were identified using field observation for hydric soil indicators accepted by the Corps. Soil data were not always collected if hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology were present and did not appear altered (Environmental Laboratory 1987). In addition, soil data were not collected in conditions where there was a clear lack of hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation indicators. Where soil data were collected, a Munsell soil color chart was used to determine soil color. Intermittent, ephemeral, and perennial drainages with characteristics of a defined streambed, streambank, ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and other erosional features also were identified. The OHWM identifies the lateral jurisdictional limits of nonwetland waters of the U.S. Federal jurisdiction over nonwetland waters of the U.S. extends to the OHWM, defined in 33 CFR 328.3 as “the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The Corps defines “stream bed” as “the substrate of the stream channel between the OHWMs. The substrate may be bedrock or inorganic particles that range in size from clay to boulders.” The boundaries of identified wetlands and other characteristics of potential waters of the U.S. were mapped using a Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Data were differentially corrected using the CompassCom base station. All differential correction was completed using Trimble Pathfinder Office 5.9 software. GPS data were incorporated using ESRI® ArcGIS Desktop software. Additionally, where appropriate, wetlands were drawn on georectified aerials and then digitized. Wetland Classification Delineated wetlands were classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) combined with a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach (Brinson 1993). The HGM approach assesses the chemical, physical, and biological functions of wetlands based on its geomorphic setting, water source, and hydrodynamics. HGM classes found in Colorado are mineral soil flats, organic soil flats, riverine, lacustrine fringe, slope, and depressional. The Cowardin classification uses a hierarchical structure of systems, subsystems, and classes to classify both wetlands and deepwater habitats. Wetlands with persistent or nonpersistent vegetation are classified in the Cowardin system as palustrine, which typically includes wetlands referred to as marshes, fens, wet meadows, and sloughs. The palustrine system also includes small, shallow, permanent, or intermittent water bodies such as ponds. Palustrine wetlands may be situated shoreward of lakes and river channels, on river floodplains, in isolated catchments, or on slopes (Cowardin et al. 1979). Under the palustrine system, wetlands are classified as emergent (erect, rooted, herbaceous, and usually perennial hydrophytes that remain standing until at least the next growing season); scrub-shrub (woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall); or forested (woody vegetation 20 feet or taller). In wetlands where Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 8 ERO Resources Corporation more than one wetland type occurs, the wetland type of the largest area is used. For example, an area that is predominantly palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands but also contains a small amount of palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetlands would be categorized as PEM wetlands. Because of the limited occurrence of the smaller sized wetland types within the larger wetland polygons, these areas were not separated out within the delineated polygons. Description of Wetlands and Other Waters ERO assessed the project area for wetlands and other waters as described below. Data were collected from various locations in the project area to document the characteristics of uplands and wetlands, and the transition areas between them. All data points and routine wetland determination forms are in Appendix B. The following sections contain information on potential surface water connections of wetlands and other waters within the project area. Table 1 provides a summary of the mapped areas, including Cowardin classification, for each wetland. Approximately 0.03 acre of stream channel and 5.56 acres of wetlands occur within the project area (Figure 2). Table 1. Wetland area and Cowardin classification. Water/Wetland ID Longitude Latitude Feature Size (acre) Cowardin Classification Wetland 1 105.066801 40.492361 4.52 PEM Wetland 2 105.066399 40.491418 1.04 PEM Total Wetlands 5.56 Unnamed Ditch 105.076114 40.491722 0.03 N/A Wetlands During the 2019 site visit, ERO mapped 5.56 acres of wetlands within the project area (Table 1; Figure 2). Wetlands occur throughout the center of the project area (Wetland 1) and within a manmade detention pond in the southeastern corner of the project area (Wetland 2; Figure 2). ERO collected data in 11 locations (data points (DP)1 through DP11) within the project area to determine if hydrophytic vegetation, hydrophytic soil, or wetland hydrology was present. Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is a depressional palustrine emergent wetland that transects the project area from west to east. Wetland 1 appears to receive runoff from the surrounding residential development to the north and west. Wetland 1 connects to a swale along the eastern border of the project area (Figure 2). The western portion of Wetland 1 consists of a narrow swale with sparse wetland vegetation that has been disturbed by grazing and nearby prairie dogs. Vegetation in the western portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by sporadic patches of saltgrass, Baltic rush, and curly dock. Due to the low vegetative cover proximity to disturbed uplands, these are considered low-quality wetlands. The eastern portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by broadleaf cattail (Photo 5). Other prevalent species in the eastern portion of Wetland 1 include hairy willowherb, a List A Colorado Noxious Weed, and Canada thistle, a List B Colorado Noxious Weed. Although vegetative cover is high in the eastern portion of Wetland 1 due to low diversity and prevalence of noxious weeds, this portion of Wetland 1 is considered moderate quality. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 9 ERO Resources Corporation Wetland 2 Wetland 2 is a palustrine emergent wetland that occurs within a manmade detention pond in the southeastern corner of the project area. Wetland 2 receives water from residential development to the east and south, and water from Wetland 2 flows into a storm drain. Wetland 2 is considered moderate quality due to low vegetative diversity and the high number of cattails. Streams and Open Water The project area is within Hydrologic Unit 101900071002. The wetlands in the project area are shown as a marsh and pond on the USGS Loveland, Colorado topographic quadrangle. The Unnamed Ditch is not shown on the USGS Loveland, Colorado topographic quadrangle or the National Hydrography Dataset (Figure 1). Within the project area, the Unnamed Ditch is a 2- to 4-foot-wide constructed ditch. The Unnamed Ditch originates east of South College Avenue and splits into two laterals south of the project area. Both laterals south of the project area appear to dissipate in the uplands near Robert Benson Lake. No other areas of open water were observed in the project area during the 2019 site visit. Impacts on Streams, Open Water, and Wetlands On January 28, 2020, the Corps determined that Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and the Unnamed Ditch are not considered waters of the U.S. and are not jurisdictional (Appendix C). Because Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and the Unnamed Ditch are not waters of U.S., a Section 404 permit is not required for any work within those features. The proposed project would result in impacts on 0.386 acre of low-quality wetlands and 1.12 acres of moderate-quality wetlands (Figure 3). Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species During the 2019 site visit, ERO assessed the project area for potential habitat for threatened, endangered, and candidate species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Federally threatened and endangered species are protected under the ESA. Adverse effects on a federally listed species or its habitat require consultation with the Service under Section 7 or 10 of the ESA. The Service lists several threatened and endangered species with potential habitat in Larimer County, or that would be potentially affected by projects in Larimer County (Table 2). Table 2. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in the project area or potentially affected by projects in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Habitat Present or Potential to Affect? Mammals Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes E Prairie and grassland ranging from the midwestern to western U.S. No, within block clearance zone Canada lynx Lynx Canadensis T Moist boreal forests that have cold, snowy winters No North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus PT Cold conditions with deep persistent snow cover No Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Preble’s) Zapus hudsonius preblei T Shrub riparian/wet meadows No Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 10 ERO Resources Corporation Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Habitat Present or Potential to Affect? Birds Interior least tern** Sterna antillarum athalassos E Sandy/pebble beaches on lakes, reservoirs, and rivers Potential to affect due to anticipated depletions Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis T Closed-canopy forest in steep canyons No habitat Piping plover** Charadrius melodus T Sandy lakeshore beaches and river sandbars Potential to affect due to anticipated depletions Whooping crane** Grus americana E Mudflats around reservoirs and in agricultural areas Potential to affect due to anticipated depletions Insects Arapahoe snowfly Arsapria Arapahoe C Cold, clean, well-oxygenated streams and rivers; found in only two tributaries (Elkhorn Creek and Young Gulch) of the Poudre River in Colorado No Fish Greenback cutthroat trout** Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias T Cold, clear, gravel headwater streams and mountain lakes No habitat Pallid sturgeon** Scaphirhynchus albus E Large, turbid, free-flowing rivers with a strong current and gravel or sandy substrate Potential to affect due to anticipated depletions Plants North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula E Known only from exposures of the Coalmont Formation at elevations from 7,940 to 8,260 feet No Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (ULTO) Spiranthes diluvialis T Moist to wet alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial streams, and around springs and lakes below 7,800 feet in elevation Potential habitat may be present Western prairie fringed orchid** Platanthera praeclara T Mesic and wet prairies, sedge meadows Potential to affect due to anticipated depletions *T = Federally Threatened Species; E = Federally Endangered Species; PT = Proposed Threatened. **Water depletions in the South Platte River may affect the species and/or critical habitat in downstream reaches in other counties or states. Source: Service 2020. [b College AvenueTrilby Road Debra DriveKevin DriveRick Drive AutumnRidgeDriveWetland 1 (4.522 ac) Wetland 2 (1.041 ac) Unnamed Ditch (0.032 ac) Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc.File: 10761 Figure 3.mxd (GS)March 27, 2020 ± Figure 3Proposed Impacts6750 College Avenue Ecological Characterization Study 0 350175FeetPath: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\ECS Figures\10761 Figure 3.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, July 2019 [b Potential Red-tailed Hawk Nest Flow Direction Ditch Swale Upland Vegetated Swale Active Prairie Dog Colony Low-Quality Wetland (0.386 ac) Moderate-Quality Wetland (5.177 ac) Ordinary High Water Mark (0.032 ac) Project Area Boundary Permanent Prairie Dog Colony Impact (24.015 ac) Permanent Low-Quality Wetland Impact (0.386 ac) Permanent Moderate-Quality Wetland Impact (1.120 ac) Permanent Ordinary High Water Mark Impact (0.032 ac) Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 12 ERO Resources Corporation Possible Effects ERO previously submitted a habitat assessment letter to the Service. On February 3, 2020 the Service made a no concerns determination for the proposed project due to a lack of suitable habitat for listed species (Appendix D). No further action is required for federally threatened and endangered species. Other Species of Concern Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Species Background The black-tailed prairie dog is a Colorado species of special concern (Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) 2018). Black-tailed prairie dogs are important components of the short and mesic grasslands systems. Threats to this species include habitat loss and degradation, habitat fragmentation, disease (sylvatic plague), and lethal control activities. Typically, areas occupied by prairie dogs have greater cover and abundance of perennial grasses and annual forbs compared with nonoccupied sites (Whicker and Detling 1988; Witmer et al. 2002). Black-tailed prairie dogs are commonly considered a “keystone” species because their activities (burrowing and intense grazing) provide food and shelter for many other grassland species and have a large effect on community structure and ecosystem function (Power et al. 1996). Prairie dogs can contribute to overall landscape heterogeneity, affect nutrient cycling, and provide nest sites and shelter for wildlife (Whicker and Detling 1988). Species such as black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, prairie rattlesnake, and mountain plover are closely linked to prairie dog burrow systems for food and/or cover. Prairie dogs also provide an important prey resource for numerous predators including American badger, coyote, red fox, bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and other raptors. Prairie dogs also can denude the surface by clipping aboveground vegetation and contributing to exposed bare ground by digging up roots (Kuford 1958). Potential Habitat and Possible Effects During the 2020 site visit, ERO mapped 24.015 acres of active black-tailed prairie dog colonies within the project area. CPW recommends attempting to remove or exterminate prairie dogs prior to bulldozing an active prairie dog town for humane reasons. CPW requires permits to move prairie dogs. Private companies can be hired to relocate prairie dogs, although relocation sites are difficult to secure. If extermination of prairie dogs is the only option, several independent companies provide treatments for prairie dog control. Fort Collins has an ordinance protecting prairie dog colonies that are 1 acre or larger. Larimer County follows CPW guidelines and, if a prairie dog colony or other protected species is found, a mitigation plan is required. Recommendations If prairie dog removal becomes necessary, CPW recommends removing them in a humane manner before any earthwork or construction takes place. Sun Communities is proposing to use the City of Fort Collins Fee-In-Lieu program to mitigate for the impact on 24.015 acres of black-tailed prairie dog Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 13 ERO Resources Corporation colonies. To prevent future human-wildlife conflict with prairie dogs on portions of the project area that would border active prairie dog colonies to the southeast, Sun Communities is proposing to install a combination of fencing and tall grasses to prevent dispersal into the development. Prior to any work that would disturb a colony between March 15 and October 31, colonies should be surveyed for burrowing owls. Western Burrowing Owl Species Background The western burrowing owl (burrowing owl) is a small migrant owl listed by the state of Colorado as a threatened species (CPW 2018) and is federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Primary threats to the burrowing owl include habitat loss and fragmentation, anthropogenic sources of mortality (e.g., vehicular collisions), and loss of wintering grounds, largely in Mexico. In general, burrowing owls are found in grasslands with vegetation less than 4 inches high and a relatively large proportion of bare ground. In Colorado, burrowing owls are usually associated with black-tailed prairie dog colonies (Kingery 1998; Andrews and Righter 1992). More than 70 percent of sightings reported in the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas were in prairie dog colonies (Kingery 1998). Burrowing owls usually arrive on their breeding grounds about mid-March to early April and remain until September. Burrowing owls are present in Colorado from March 15 through October 31, with breeding from mid-April to early/mid-August (Andrews and Righter 1992; Kingery 1998). CPW suggests conducting burrowing owl clearance surveys in prairie dog towns that are subject to poisoning and/or construction projects during the period from March 15 through October 31 (Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) 2008). Potential Habitat and Possible Effects The potential prairie dog burrows in the project area can provide potential burrowing owl habitat. Inadvertent killing of burrowing owls could occur during prairie dog poisoning, construction, or earthmoving projects if owls are present in the project area. CPW has a recommended buffer of 150 feet surrounding active burrowing owl nests (CDOW 2008). Since prairie dog burrows may be present in the project area, burrowing owls could be directly affected by project activities. Recommendations CPW recommends conducting burrowing owl clearance surveys in prairie dog colonies that are subject to poisoning and/or construction projects from March 15 through October 31 (CDOW 2008). Construction occurring between November 1 and March 14 would not require clearance surveys. If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint or within 150 feet of the construction footprint, individual nest burrows and a 150-foot buffer around the burrow should be left undisturbed until the owls have moved or migrated from the site, which can be determined through monitoring. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 14 ERO Resources Corporation Raptors and Migratory Birds Background Migratory birds, as well as their eggs and nests, are protected under the MBTA. While destruction of a nest by itself is not prohibited under the MBTA, nest destruction that results in the unpermitted take of migratory birds or their eggs is illegal (Service 2003). The regulatory definition of a take means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (50 CFR 10.12). Under the MBTA, the Service may issue nest depredation permits, which allow a permittee to remove an active nest. The Service, however, issues few permits and only under specific circumstances, usually related to human health and safety. Obtaining a nest depredation permit is unlikely and involves a process that may take a significant amount of time. In addition, CPW has recommended buffers for nesting raptors, depending on the species (generally ⅓ or ¼ mile) (CDOW 2008). The best way to comply with the MBTA is to remove vegetation outside of the active breeding season, which typically falls between March and August, depending on the species. Public awareness of the MBTA has grown in recent years, and most MBTA enforcement actions are the result of a concerned member of the community reporting noncompliance. Potential Habitat and Possible Effects The breeding season for most birds in Colorado is March through August, with the exception of a few species that begin breeding in February, such as great horned owls. During the 2020 site visit, no active migratory bird nests, including raptor nests, were observed within the project area. A potential red- tailed hawk nest was observed in a cottonwood tree approximately 200 feet south of the project area (Figure 2). A red-tailed hawk was observed in a tree near the nest but was not observed using the nest during the 2020 site visit. The cattail wetlands in the eastern half of the project provide nesting habitat for species such as red-winged blackbirds. However, because the 2020 site visit occurred before the breeding season of red-winged blackbirds, no active nests were observed. Recommendations ERO recommends vegetation removal outside (typically September through February) of the breeding season. Both the Denver Field Office of the Service (2009) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (2011) have identified the primary nesting season for migratory birds in eastern Colorado as occurring between April 1 and mid to late August. However, a few species, such as bald eagles, great horned owls, and red-tailed hawks, can nest as early as December (eagles) or late February (owls and red-tailed hawks). Because of variability in the breeding seasons of various bird species, ERO recommends, at a minimum, that a nest survey be conducted within one week prior to construction to determine if any active nests are present in the project area so they can be avoided. Additional nest surveys during the nesting season may also be warranted to identify active nesting species that may present additional development timing restrictions (e.g., eagles or red-tailed hawks). It is likely that if the potential red-tailed hawk nest becomes active, the hawks would likely be habituated to human Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 15 ERO Resources Corporation disturbance due to active construction for a different development project less than 150 feet from the nest to the west. Nest removal (not including bald eagle nests) may occur during the nonbreeding season to discourage future nesting and avoid violations of the MBTA. No permit or approval is necessary for removing nests during the nonbreeding season; however, nests must be destroyed and may not be collected under MBTA regulations. If the construction schedule does not allow vegetation removal outside of the breeding season, a nest survey should be conducted within one week prior to vegetation removal to determine if the nest is active and by which species. If active nests are found, any work that would destroy the nests could not be conducted until the birds have vacated the nests. Other Wildlife The project area occurs within mule deer, white-tailed deer, mountain lion, and black bear overall range (CPW 2018). No other sensitive species occur within the project area that would be significantly adversely affected by the proposed project and the project area does not serve as a wildlife movement corridor as it is completely surrounded by residential development. The prairie dog colonies within the project area provide prey for raptors and other wildlife, and it is likely raptors forage in these areas. The prairie dog colonies also likely provide burrows for cottontail rabbits, bull and rattlesnakes and other ground dwelling wildlife. As with any human development, wildlife species sensitive to human disturbance are likely to decline in abundance or abandon the area, while other wildlife species adapted to development are likely to increase in abundance. Species likely to decline include prairie dogs, some raptors, and possibly coyotes. Species likely to increase include red fox, raccoon, and house mouse. Overall, surrounding and continuing development contributes to a decline in the number and diversity of wildlife species nearby and to a change in species composition to favor species that adapt better to human disturbance. Views The area surrounding the project consists entirely of residential development. Due to the project area’s location in a large depression, portions of the Front Range are only visible in the eastern half of the project area. Impacts and Recommendations Sun Communities is proposing to develop the project area for residential use. Section 3.4.1 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code calls for buffers of various widths around natural habitats and special features. Wetland 1 is identified as a natural area per the Fort Collins Natural Area mapper (City of Fort Collins 2018). Additionally, the active prairie dog colony is larger than 1 acre, which would be considered a special habitat feature. However, the project area provides little ecological function because the project area is surrounded by residential development and has low vegetative cover due to overgrazing, a prevalence of noxious weeds, and a high amount of nonnative vegetative species. The prairie dog Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 16 ERO Resources Corporation colonies within the project area provide prey for raptors and other wildlife, and it is likely raptors forage in these areas. The prairie dog colonies also likely provide burrows for cottontail rabbits, bull and rattlesnakes and other ground dwelling wildlife. The proposed project would result in impacts to 0.386 acre of low-quality wetlands and 1.12 acres of moderate-quality wetlands. Although the wetlands provide little ecological function due sparse vegetation cover and number of noxious weeds in areas of proposed disturbed, Sun Communities is proposing to mitigate for the impacts to wetlands. To mitigate for the impacts on 0.386 acre of low- quality wetlands and 1.12 acres of moderate-quality wetlands, Sun Communities is proposing to construct two stormwater ponds approximately 2.89 acres in size and conduct noxious weed control in the undisturbed portions of Wetland 1 to control the hairy willowherb. The storm water ponds would help reduce sedimentation, would serve as buffer between the development and existing wetlands, and wetlands would likely become established within the ponds. The stormwater ponds would be subject to routine maintenance. Sun Communities is proposing to use the City of Fort Collins Fee-In-Lieu program to mitigate for the impacts on 24.015 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. To prevent future human-wildlife conflict with prairie dogs on portions of the project area that would border active prairie dog colonies to the southeast, Sun Communities is proposing to install a combination of fencing and tall grasses to prevent dispersal into the development. If vegetation- or land-clearing activities would occur during the nesting season for migratory birds, migratory birds or their nests or eggs could potentially be disturbed. ERO recommends that vegetation removal occur outside of the active breeding season, which is typically between March and August, depending on the species. If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, the project area should be surveyed for active nests by a qualified and experienced biologist. References Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. 1st edition. Botanical Research Institute of Texas. Fort Worth, TX. Andrews, R.A. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. City of Fort Collins. 2018. City of Fort Collins – GIS Open Data Natural Habitat. https://data- fcgov.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/natural-habitat?geometry=-105.03%2C40.474%2C- 104.949%2C40.485. Last accessed March 25, 2020. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2011. Work Sheet: 240pmbcdotb dated 02-03-11. https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/wildlife/guidelines/Birdspeccontractorsbio.pdf/vie w. Last accessed June 24, 2019. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado Raptor Nests. February. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 17 ERO Resources Corporation Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2018. CPW Wildlife Shapefile Download. From: Species Activity Data Collection. Redlands, CA: ESRI. http://www.arcgis.com/home/group.html?owner=rsacco&title=Colorado%20Parks%20and%20Wildlif e%20-%20Species%20Activity%20Data. Last accessed December 2018. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2020. Colorado listing of endangered, threatened and wildlife species of special concern. http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList/Pages/ListO fThreatenedAndEndangeredSpecies.aspx. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services Program. No. FWS/OBS-79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report 7- 87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Kingery, H.E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Kuford, C.C. 1958. Prairie dogs, Whitefaces, and Blue Grama. Wildlife Monograph 1-78. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30:1-17. Published April 28, 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Last accessed July 9, 2019. Power, M. E., D. Tilman, J. A. Estes B. A. Menge, W. J. Bond, L. S. Mills, G. Daily, J. C. Castilla, J. Lubchenco, and R. T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. BioScience 466:9-20. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. The PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. Last accessed December 4, 2019. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2003. Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. April 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2009. Personal communication between Pete Plage (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and ERO Resources Corporation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2020. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC). https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Last accessed March 25, 2020. Weber, W.A. and R.C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope. 4th edition. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. Whicker, A.D. and J.K. Detling. 1988. Ecological consequences of prairie dog disturbances. BioScience 38:778-785. Witmer, G.W., K.C. VerCauteren, K.M. Manci, and D.M. Dees. 2002. Urban-suburban prairie dog management opportunities and challenges. Proceedings of 19th Vertebrate Pest Conference 19:439- 444. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix A Photo Log P«ÊãÊ LÊ¦ 6750 CÊ½½¦ AòÄç PÙÊ¹ã EÊ½Ê¦®½ C«ÙãÙ®þã®ÊÄ Sãçù MÙ« 16, 2020 Photo 1 - Overview of the disturbed uplands in the eastern porƟ on of the project area. View is to the west. Photo 2 - Overview of acƟ ve prairie dog colonies in the western porƟ on of the project area. View is to the southwest. P«ÊãÊ LÊ¦ 6750 CÊ½½¦ AòÄç PÙÊ¹ã EÊ½Ê¦®½ C«ÙãÙ®þã®ÊÄ Sãçù MÙ« 16, 2020 Photo 3 - Overview of the uplands in the project area. View is to the east. Photo 4 - Overview of wetlands in the western porƟ on of Wetland 1. View is to the west. P«ÊãÊ LÊ¦ 6750 CÊ½½¦ AòÄç PÙÊ¹ã EÊ½Ê¦®½ C«ÙãÙ®þã®ÊÄ Sãçù MÙ« 16, 2020 Photo 5 - Overview of wetlands in the eastern porƟ on of Wetland 1. View is to the northeast. Photo 6 - Overview of wetlands in Wetland 2. View is to the east. P«ÊãÊ LÊ¦ 6750 CÊ½½¦ AòÄç PÙÊ¹ã EÊ½Ê¦®½ C«ÙãÙ®þã®ÊÄ Sãçù MÙ« 16, 2020 Photo 7 - Overview of the swale along the eastern border of the project area. View is to the northeast. Photo 8 - Overview of the coƩ onwood trees and potenƟ al red-tailed hawk nest outside the project area. View is to the southwest. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix B Wetland Delineation Datasheets US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP1 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Swalw Concave 5 G 40.493361 105.065810 NAD 83 Cushman fine sandy loam NN N NN N Majority of swale was covered in snow during 2019 delineation 30' 1 2 15'05 30 90 5'5 20 Rumex crispus Lactuca serriola Cirsium arvense 50 10 20 5 85 Y N Y N UPL FAC FAC FACU 50 250 85 360 4.23 15 Bromus inermis US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP1 0-8 8-16 2.5Y 5/3 2.5Y 5/2 100 90 2.5Y 5/6 10 C M ClLo ClLo 0 Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit. Saturation at surface US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP2 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Depression concave 2 G 40.492595 105.065888 NAD 83 Water NN N NN N 30' 1 1 15'1 40 80 10 30 5'10 40 Cirsium arvense Phalaris arundinacea Rumex crispus 30 10 10 10 60 Y N N N FACW FACU FACW FAC 60 150 2.5 40 Epilobium hirsutum US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP2 0-12 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C Pl ClLo 0 Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP3 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Hillslope concave 5 G 40.492629 105.065884 NAD 83 water NN N NN N Hillslope adjacent to depression 30' 0 2 15'0 5' Cirsium arvense Asclepias speciosa 30 40 10 80 Y Y N UPL FACU FAC 20 Bromus inermis US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP3 0-16 10YR 3/2 100 ClLo Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP4 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Depression concave 2 G 40.492461 105.066178 NAD 83 Water NN N NN N 30' 1 1 15'1 70 70 10 30 5'10 40 Veronica anagallis-aquatica Cisium arvense Rumex crispus 60 10 10 10 90 Y N N N OBL OBL FACU FAC 90 140 1.56 10 Typha latifolia US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP4 0-2 2-16 10YR 3/2 10YR 2/2 100 20 Gley1 2.5/N 80 D M ClLo ClLo 6 0 Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP5 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Depression concave 2 G 40.491546 105.066657 NAD 83 Cushman fine sandy loam NN N NN N Wetlands within stormwater pond 30' 2 2 15'1 5' Distichlis spicata 70 30 100 Y Y OBL FACW 0 Typha latifolia US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP5 0-2 2-14 10YR 3/2 10YR 2/2 100 40 Gley 1 2.5/N 60 D M ClLo ClLo 4 Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP6 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Hillslope Concave 3 G 40.491645 105.066693 NAD 83 Water NN N NN N 30' 0 1 15'0 5' Cirsium arvense Distichlis spicata 40 15 10 65 Y N N UPL FACU FACW 35 Bromus inermis US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP6 0-16 2.5Y 3/2 100 ClLo Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP7 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Swale concave 2 G 40.493378 105.071505 NAD 83 Kim Loam NN N NN N Wetland vegetated swale 30' 2 2 15'1 5' Distichlis spicata Chenopodium album Echinochloa crus-galli 40 20 5 10 75 Y Y N N FACW FACW FACU FAC 25 Juncus arcticus US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP7 0-2 2-16 10YR3/2 10YR 3/2 100 95 7.5YR 5/8 5 C M ClLo ClLo 5 Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP8 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W hillslope concave 2 G 40.493340 105.071502 NAD 83 Kim Loam NN N NN N 30' 0 1 15'0 5' Verbena bracteata Pascopyrum smithii Chenopodium album Hordeum jubatum 50 10 5 5 70 Y N N N FACU FACU FACU FACW 30 US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP8 0-16 2.5Y 3/2 100 ClLo Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Jan 10 2020 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP9 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Swale Concave 5 G 40.493625° -105.065811° NAD 83 Cushman fine sandy loam NN N NN N Upland vegetated swale 30' 0 2 15'0 5 5 Y FACUElaeagnus angustifolia 5' Cirsium arvense Lactuca serriola 50 5 10 65 Y N N UPL FACU FAC 35 Bromus inermis US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP9 0-10 10-16 10YR 4/3 10YR 4/2 98 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M ClLo ClLo US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Jan 10 2020 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP10 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Swale Concave 5 G 40.494135° -105.065819° NAD 83 Renohill clay loam NN N NN N Upland vegetated swale 30' 1 2 15'05 15 45 5'13 52 Cirsium arvense Bromus inermis Helianthus annuus 15 10 40 3 68 Y N Y N FAC FACU UPL FACU 40 200 68 297 4.38 32 Lactuca serriola US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP10 0-4 4-16 10YR 5/2 10YR 5/2 95 10YR5/4 5 C M ClLo ClLo US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Jan 10 2020 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP11 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Swale Concave 5 G NAD 83 Kim loam NN N NN N 30' 0 1 15'0 5'5 20 Cirsium arvense 60 5 65 Y N UPL FACU 60 300 65 320 4.92 35 Bromus inermis US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP11 Ground frozen could not dig Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix C Approved Jurisdictional Determination Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix D U.S. Fish and Wildlife No Concerns Letter ColoradoES, FW6 <coloradoes@ftvs.gov> IEXTERNALI 6750 College Avenue Habitat Assessment l message Hidde Snieder <HSnieder@eroresources.com> To: "coloradoes@fws. gov" <coloradoes@fws. gov> Cc: Christine Sveum <csveum@atwell-group.com> Tue, Jan 7,2020 at 8:53 AM Drue, Atwell, LLC. On behalf of Sun Communities is requesting Technical Assistance regarding threatened and endangered species for the 6750 College Avenue project in Larimer County, Colorado. Please see the attached letter which includes the a description ofthe project and conditions within the project area. Please let us know if you need additional information or have any questions. Thanks, Hidde Snieder B io lo9 ist ERO n".ou..es corporation 303.830. 1 188 O | 303.619.5838 C I hsnieder@eroresources.com I www.eroresources.com ?ozo rA - o5(7 J 6750 College Ave Habitat Assessment,pdf 1980K U.S. FISH AND WITDTIFE SERVICE E No coNcERNs tr CONCUR NOT UKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFE T ENT 151n - Mo suifublt kab;le+ 6. lislql 52ec-iee - Area o( 5ub ucbaa 5lraul - N caccet oLcft.t'on is terertl mi lcs au.\l httpsr/mait.google.com/msil/b/AHl rexOz[r\?2VVr36pzmTTrN6jbvs6780J4SGY7HWo-URVU513OEE/ui0?ak=0cl c3e91bc8view=pt&search=all&perml... 111 1n 12020 DEPARTI!!ENT OF THE INTERIOR lVail - IEXTERNAL]6750 College Avenue Habital Assessment 0Boal @r{}.lEcT Colorado furlstant Fleld