HomeMy WebLinkAboutWATERFIELD THIRD FILING - PDP - PDP130037 - REPORTS - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTDecember 16, 2013
James Dullea
Parker Land Investments, LLC.
9162 S. Kenwood Court
Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80126
RE: 2nd Revision Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) Letter Report for the Proposed Waterfield
Development Site Near the Northwest Corner of East Vine Drive and Merganser Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado
Jim:
This second revision of the ECS letter report is submitted to satisfy the requirements of Section 3.4.1 of the Land
Use Code of the City of Fort Collins regarding the submittal of an ECS report for proposed development projects
and to address additional City comments regarding buffer zone mitigation details. The Waterfield project site is
an approximate 60-acre parcel located north of East Vine Drive and west of Merganser Drive in the southwest ¼
of Section 5 (Township 7 North, Range 68 West) in Fort Collins, Colorado (see Figure 1). Ecological
characteristics of the property were reviewed and a wetland survey was completed on December 10, 2012. The
following provides a summary of information required by Fort Collins Land Use Code under 3.4.1 (D) (1) items
(a) through (k).
ECOLOGICAL STUDY CHARACTERIZATION CHECKLIST
(a & i) Existing habitats on the property consist of alfalfa hayfield, non-native grassland, non-native/native
grassland mix, weedy edge areas, wetland, pond/mudflat, and cultivated cropland (see attached Figure 2). The
majority of the property’s surface has been planted to alfalfa (Medicago sativa1) and non-native grass, primarily
smooth brome (Bromus inermis), for hay production (see attached Figure 2). Less dominant vegetation species
recorded in grass hayfield included cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis),
common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). The non-native grassland
and grass hayfield areas are dominated by smooth brome with lesser amounts of native and non-native annual
weeds. The cropland portion of the project area had apparently been plowed at the end of the 2012 growing
season and supported essentially no vegetation at the time of the December 10, 2012 field survey. There is one
segment of the non-native grassland strip along the south side of the Larimer and Weld Canal that supports a
few remnant pockets of native grassland intermixed with non-native grassland. This area is designated as Non-
native/native grassland on Figure 2. Smooth brome is still the dominant species in this area, but there are small
pockets where native grasses, including blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and sand dropseed (Sporobolus
cryptandrus), are supported. Weed dominated areas are supported between alfalfa hayfield and the perimeter
of the central wetland area on the property. Dominant species in these fringe areas around the wetland are
prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), kochia (Bassia scoparia), and lambsquarters
(Chenopodium sp.). The single, isolated wetland delineated on the property exists in a depression (see
attached Figure 2) that appears to collect excess irrigation water and may also be the result of a high water
table. The central portion of this wetland typically holds standing water during the growing season and supports
no vegetation. Additional information on this wetland is provided under the subsequent Section (b).
As a result of past agriculture conversion of the property to cropland and alfalfa hayfield, woody species on the
property are limited to trees stands in a few areas not converted to agricultural use. Areas supporting trees are
the weedy edge area on the east side of the central wetland with small pockets of Russian olive trees
1 Scientific nomenclature follows USDA, NRCS Plants Database. Available online at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/
J. Dullea
12/16/2013
Page 2 of 7
(Elaeagnus angustifolia), the non-native grassland strip along the north property boundary with mature and
young eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) trees and Russian olives, and a non-native grassland swale
along the southeast property boundary with young eastern cottonwoods (see attached Figure 2). Most
cottonwood trees along the northern property boundary are over 6 inches in diameter and may be classified by
the City Forester as significant based on the Fort Collins Land Use Code. The City Forester or a private arborist
will need to evaluate the health of these trees in order for their significance status to be determined.
Aside from potentially significant trees and the central wetland area, the Waterfield property does not support
any significant areas of native vegetation or other unique habitat features. The only other feature of ecological
value within 500 feet of the property is the Larimer and Weld Canal along the northern property boundary.
Alfalfa hayfield, non-native grassland, and cropland are non-native habitats that have been cleared of native
vegetation and woody species, and as a result, support no natural habitat features and have minimal ecological
and wildlife habitat value. Canada geese grass will occasionally graze the hayfield areas and grassland areas,
and trees on the property may be used for perching, nesting, and foraging by raptors and urban-adapted
songbirds. No raptor or other bird nests were located in trees on the property during the December 10, 2012
field survey.
Wetland and aquatic habitats are valuable habitats in that they typically support a greater diversity of plants and
animals than that found in adjacent dryland habitats. In addition, many wildlife species from adjacent upland
habitats rely on wetland habitats for obtaining food, cover, and water on a regular or intermittent basis.
Wetlands and associated open water habitats also provide foraging, resting, and breeding habitat for waterfowl,
shorebirds, and wading birds. Other species potentially present in wetland and aquatic habitats include tiger
salamander, Woodhouse’s toad, chorus frog, northern leopard frog, bullfrog, wandering garter snake, red-
winged blackbird, common yellowthroat, and song sparrow. The overall habitat value of the Waterfield wetland
has been reduced somewhat by the conversion of surrounding native habitats to cropland and hayfield habitats.
Because of the late fall timing of the Waterfield field survey there were few wildlife species observations made
on the property. Deer and raccoon tracks were noted in the muddy ground associated with the central wetland
and a flock of a few hundred Canada geese were recorded resting and grazing in alfalfa hayfield habitat. Fox
squirrel nests were also observed in some of the larger cottonwood trees along the north property boundary.
The extent of spring and summer waterfowl and waterbird use of the central pond and wetland area is unknown.
However, based on the relatively monotypic cattail and bulrush stands around the pond mudflat area, lack of
diversity of shallow and deeper water habitats in the mudflat/pond area, and lack of any woody species diversity
in the wetlands, it is unlikely the mudflat/pond and adjacent vegetated wetlands receive significant waterfowl and
shorebird use in the spring and summer.
(b) One isolated wetland area exists on the property in a depression (see attached Figure 2) that appears to
collect excess irrigation water. The central portion of this wetland has supported standing water in the past
during the growing season and was characterized by an unvegetated mud flat at the time of the December 10,
2012 field survey. Test pits could not be dug in the central mudflat area because the ground was frozen solid, a
possible indicator of saturated soils. Small patches of thin layers of ice over some portions of the mudflat
provided further indication of a possible high water table. However, test holes monitored in June 2013 indicate
that groundwater levels are too deep to assist in the support of these wetlands. Vegetated wetlands around the
mudflat/pond area are dominated by common cattail (Typha latifolia) and hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus
acutus), while the outer and more elevated portions of the wetland are dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacea) with lesser amounts of three-square (Schoenoplectus pungens) and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus)
also present. There are also a few small pockets of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) trees growing along
the eastern edge of the wetland depression. The wetland in this depression was delineated on December 10,
2012 using the methods and techniques specified for "routine on-site delineations" in the publication, Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACOE 1987), and supplemented by the document, Interim Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (USACOE 2010).
J. Dullea
12/16/2013
Page 3 of 7
Northern Engineering of Fort Collins surveyed the wetland boundaries after the delineation was completed and
determined the wetland area to be 8.46 acres with the mudflat/open water portion comprising 0.97 acre of this
total. The wetland report and a request for a jurisdictional determination were submitted to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Littleton District Office). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) determined the wetland to be
non-jurisdictional since it has no connection to Waters of the U.S. (see attached wetland report and COE
response letter). Wildlife use of the pond and wetland area is discussed under the previous Section a & i.
Follow-up visits to measure groundwater levels in the wetland area in June 2013 indicated that surface water
drainage and/or groundwater support to the wetland may be reduced from historical levels since there was no
standing water in the central pond/mudflat area and large portions of surrounding cattail stands appeared to be
dead.
(c) The Waterfield Property provides relatively unobstructed views of the Front Range foothills.
(d) As indicated under (a & i) the Waterfield Property supports little native vegetation other than in the central
wetland area, and significant trees and other woody vegetation are restricted to small, relatively linear areas that
have not been cultivated.
(e) There are no natural drainages on or near the Waterfield Property.
(f) There is no suitable habitat for any threatened, endangered, or other sensitive species on or adjacent to the
Waterfield Property. No other sensitive or ecologically important species are likely to use the property since the
majority of its surface has been converted to agricultural uses.
(g) Past agricultural and residential conversion of the lands on the Waterfield Property has eliminated the
potential for any special habitat features on the property other than the central wetland.
(h) The Larimer and Weld Canal along the north property edge represents the only possible wildlife movement
corridor on the Waterfield property. Project development would not have any impact on this potential wildlife
movement corridor.
(j) Because of the lack of natural habitat features, other than the wetland on the Waterfield Property, there is
only one issue regarding the timing of property development and ecological features or wildlife use of the project
area. If the development proposal includes removal of any trees on the property or if construction occurs near
an occupied raptor nest during the raptor or songbird nesting season (February through July), these activities
could result in the loss or abandonment of a nest and would be in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act.
(k) Since most of the project area has been converted to agricultural land use, project development would have
no impact on natural habitats or important habitat features, except for possible impacts to existing trees and the
wetland on the property. Because tree removal or construction near trees during the nesting season could result
in the loss or abandonment of a nest, it is recommended that tree removal or construction near raptor or
songbird nests occur outside of the nesting season (February 1 – July 31), or trees be surveyed to ensure lack
of nesting prior to removal or construction activities during the nesting season. This mitigation recommendation
would preclude the possible incidental take or disturbance of active songbird or raptor nests.
The current development plan would result in the removal of non-native Russian olive trees supported in non-
native grassland around the perimeter of the existing wetland area. Although these trees are considered
nuisance species, they do provide some wildlife habitat value for songbird perching, foraging, and possibly
nesting. Native woody plantings planned for the wetland buffer zone (see subsequent buffer zone enhancement
J. Dullea
12/16/2013
Page 4 of 7
discussion) would mitigate the removal of Russian olive trees that currently provide some wildlife habitat value in
non-native grassland habitat. Native or other trees determined to be significant on the property should be
preserved to the extent possible. Removal of any trees classified as significant would need to be mitigated with
replacement trees, as determined by the City Forester based on the Land Use Code.
The wetland on the property is greater than one-third acre in size, but is not likely to receive significant waterfowl
and shorebird use because of the reasons provided under the previous Section a & i. The City of Fort Collins
buffer zone standard for this type of wetland feature is 100 feet. This buffer standard is applied from the edge of
the delineated wetland. Current development plans indicate development would encroach into the wetland
buffer zone and wetlands. The perimeter edge of delineated wetlands equates to 3,123 linear feet. Of this,
1,026 feet would be adjacent to the proposed development. With the current development proposal, lot lines
would encroach into wetlands for 212 feet of the 1,026, resulting in the loss of approximately 0.18 acre of
wetlands at the southeast corner of the delineated wetland area. Lot lines would also encroach into the 100-foot
buffer for about an additional 348 feet with a maximum buffer reduction down to 24.55 feet. Over the remainder
of the wetland boundary, the wetland buffer would meet or exceed the 100-foot requirement, and the average
buffer width would exceed 100 feet. The buffer area corresponding to a 100-foot buffer would be 7.22 acres.
With the current site plan, the total buffer area would be 7.25 acres.
The area of wetland encroachment supports relatively low quality wetlands (monotypic stands of reed
canarygrass), but the Land Use Code would require the proposed development to provide mitigation for the
wetland and buffer zone encroachment. No wetland mitigation is required by the COE since the wetland is an
isolated, non-jurisdictional wetland (see attached COE response letter). Typically the City requires one-for-one
replacement of wetlands for mitigation.
The City can permit a reduction in prescribed buffer width as long as the buffer zone standards stipulated in
Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code are met. In order to meet performance standards goals for buffer zone
enhancement, especially in areas with a reduction in prescribed buffer, the design team for the project has
proposed substantial plantings of native shrubs and trees to enhance wildlife habitat value in the buffer zone.
Supplemental plantings of appropriate native woody vegetation species within the wetland buffer zone would
significantly enhance habitat diversity and quality of the overall wetland area and buffer zone in accordance with
the buffer zone performance standards stipulated in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. The goal of these
plantings is to create a self-sustaining, native vegetation community to enhance wildlife habitat. The intensity of
woody plantings has also been increased in reduced buffer zone areas to visually screen adjacent areas of
development from the wetland area. Other buffer zone enhancements include development of a recreational
footpath around the outer edge of the wetland buffer zone and spur trails off this path to provide access to
wildlife viewing areas at the edge of the wetlands.
Another goal of upland wildlife enhancement is to mitigate for the projected loss of 0.18 acre of wetland. This
would not be in-kind mitigation replacement for wetland loss, but groundwater monitoring has indicated that
creation of wetlands to mitigate wetland loss is not likely feasible for the Waterfield project area. Four
groundwater monitoring test holes were established to evaluate groundwater levels within the wetland area and
the potential for wetland mitigation supported by groundwater. Locations of the test holes in wetlands are
depicted on Figure 3. Test Holes 17 and 18 were power drilled as part of the developer’s geotechnical
evaluation of the property. Test Holes CCA-1 and CCA-2 were hand-augered by Cedar Creek personnel to
provide additional groundwater level information within the wetland area. Groundwater levels were measured in
Test Holes 17 and 18 on June 7 and 19. Groundwater levels were measured in Test Holes CCA-1 and CCA-2
on June 14 and 19. Table 1 presents the results of the groundwater monitoring efforts.
J. Dullea
12/16/2013
Page 5 of 7
Table 1. Waterfield Groundwater Levels in Existing Wetlands
Test Hole Groundwater Depth (in inches)
June 7, 2013 June 14, 2013 June 19, 2013
17 79 no data 82
18 80 no data 89
CCA-1 no data 45 211
CCA-2 no data 38 02
1The higher groundwater measured at CCA-1 on June 19 compared to June 14 was likely the result of
capillary rise.
2CCA-2 was established in a depression within a cattail stand. The June 19 visit recorded water to the
surface and standing water in depression areas near the test hole, probably the result of recent heavy rain
in the area and not rising groundwater
The COE (20102) indicates that wetland hydrology sufficient for the creation of wetlands requires 14 or more
consecutive days of flooding or ponding, or a water table 12 in. (30 cm) or less below the soil surface, during the
growing season at a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 (50 percent or higher probability). As indicated in
Table 1, groundwater measurements are well below 12 inches except for CCA-2 on June 19, which was
probably the result of recent rains rather than a rise in groundwater. Based on this information and the apparent
decline observed for existing wetlands (dying cattail stands), creation of additional wetlands to mitigate wetlands
lost to development would be difficult without supplemental irrigation, which is not a desirable condition for self-
sustaining wetlands. It is also uncertain what effect the loss of irrigation runoff and residential development will
have on water regimes in the vegetated wetland and mudflat/pond areas.
Future mitigation planning for wetland buffer zone would also need to be dependent on water regimes projected
for the wetland after project development. The farmer of the property has indicated that the cropland on the
property is irrigated anywhere from 30 to 45 days during growing season at a rate of 1.77 acre-feet/day (6/18/13
e-mail from C. Rishell), which translates to 53.1 to 79.65 acre feet of water applied during the growing season.
However, the quantity of excess irrigation water that may flow into the existing wetland depression is unknown.
Northern Engineering has estimated that runoff from impermeable surfaces from the proposed Waterfield
Project, at full build out, would average approximately 6.78 acre-feet from April through October (6/3/13 e-mail
from A. Cvar). It is currently proposed that this runoff would be treated and then released into the wetland
depression area. Whether this water discharge would be sufficient to maintain the existing wetlands is also
unknown. However, based on the fact that the current wetland conditions appear to be declining from reduced
levels of surface water, any plans to use the pond/mudflat area and adjacent wetlands for water detention
should help to maintain the wetland and possibly reverse the current trend of wetland decline.
Because of the uncertainties of sufficient groundwater or surface water runoff to support wetland creation to
mitigate projected wetland losses on the Waterfield property, the project design team is proposing to mitigate the
wetland loss by additional upland wildlife habitat enhancement within the wetland buffer zone. Additional
plantings of appropriate native woody vegetation species would be implemented around the wetland perimeter
could significantly enhance upland habitat quality surrounding the wetland and increase overall habitat diversity
in the wetland/buffer area over current existing conditions. Table 2 provides a listing of the number of shrub and
tree plantings originally proposed for buffer zone enhancement required by Section 3.4.1 buffer zone
performance standards, as well as the more extensive plantings proposed as upland habitat enhancement for
wetland mitigation loss. Detailed information on species selection, planting stock size, and location and density
of plantings is provided on mitigation and wetland enhancement and mitigation plan sheets provided with project
development plan submittal documents.
2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, ERDC/EL TR-10-1, March 2010. 138 pp. +
appendices.
J. Dullea
12/16/2013
Page 6 of 7
Table 2. Woody Plant Quantities Proposed for Buffer Zone Enhancement and
Mitigation Plantings
Buffer Zone Enhancement
Planting Quantities
Additional Upland Planting
Quantities for Wetland Loss
Mitigation
Total Buffer Enhancement
and Wetland Mitigation
Plantings
Shrubs: 109
Small Trees: 10
Cottonwood Trees: 18
Shrubs: 105
Small Trees: 31
Cottonwood Trees: 53
Shrubs: 214
Small Trees: 41
Cottonwood Trees: 71
In buffer zone areas where there is stable non-native grass cover such as smooth brome, no additional seeding
of native grass species is recommended because of the highly competitive nature of non-native grasses on the
property. For disturbed weedy areas or areas disturbed by grading within the buffer zone, native grasses
recommended for seeding in the drier portions of the buffer zone include blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis),
buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), and thickspike wheatgrass
(Elymus lanceolatus). Grasses recommended for planting in more mesic portions of the buffer zone include
western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) and basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus). Revegetation of any water
quality/detention basins in the buffer zone, if any are planned, should also use native grass and forb species to
meet buffer zone performance standards stipulated in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code.
Two additional mitigation recommendations are also provided to ensure the success of planned habitat
enhancement plantings. The first is that a long-term habitat management plan should be developed to ensure
the success of habitat enhancement and mitigation plantings. Second, a weed management plan should be
developed to ensure the control of invasive and noxious weeds in the buffer zone. Both plans can be developed
once buffer zone enhancement and wetland mitigation plan details are finalized.
The Land Use Code also specifies a 50-foot buffer for the Larimer and Weld Canal since it could be used as a
wildlife movement corridor. A 50-foot buffer would be maintained along the majority of the canal, but there is a
150-foot strip where a very minor encroachment would occur. The encroachment would be no more than 3 feet,
so all lot lines would be at least 47 feet from the top of the canal bank. This minor reduction in the canal buffer
would not have and adverse effect on wildlife movement along the Larimer and Weld Canal.
One final mitigation recommendation is based on Article 3.2.4(D)(6) in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
that requires protection of natural areas and natural features from light spillage from off site sources. Therefore,
intensity of night lighting from the sides of residential structures facing the canal buffer zone should be shielded
or directed to preclude the intrusion of artificial nighttime light into the landscaped buffer zone and adjacent
Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal riparian corridor.
J. Dullea
12/16/2013
Page 7 of 7
This concludes Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.’s evaluation of the Waterfield Property. If you have any questions
or require additional information regarding my evaluation, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
INC.
T. Michael Phelan
Principal, Senior Wildlife Biologist
attachments: Figure 1, Location of the Waterfield Project Area; Figure 2, Habitat Mapping for the Waterfield
Project Area, Figure 3, Locations of Waterfield Test Holes, Wetland Survey Report, and COE
Response Letter
Waterfield Wetland Survey Report
&
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Response Letter
January 8, 2013
Terry McKee
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District
Denver Regulatory Office
9307 South Wadsworth Blvd.
Littleton, CO 80128-6901
RE: Wetland and Other Waters of the U.S. Delineation for the Waterfield Subdivision Property in Fort
Collins, Colorado
Dear Terry:
This letter is submitted to request a jurisdictional determination and approval of the wetland delineation for
a wetland area on the Waterfield Property. The Waterfield Property is an approximate 60-acre parcel
located north of East Vine Drive and West of North Timberline Drive and Merganser Drive in the
southwest ¼ of Section 5 (Township 7 North, Range 68 West) in Fort Collins, Colorado (see attached
Figure 1). The Waterfield Property is proposed for subdivision and development of single-family
residences. Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. completed a field wetland and other Waters of the U.S.
delineation for the project site on December 10, 2012. The objective of the delineation work was to fulfill
the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regarding the delineation of wetlands and other
potential Waters of the U. S. prior to proposed development activities. One wetland area was located and
delineated in the project area. Latitude and longitude coordinates for the approximate center of the
wetland located on the property are 40.60037° and -105.003639°, respectively (NAD 83 Datum).
The main project contact is as follows.
Mr. Jim Dullea
Parker Land Investments, LLC.
9162 S. Kenwood Court
Highlands Ranch, CO 80126
Phone: (303) 902-5400
E-mail: j.dullea@comcast.net
Survey Methodology
Prior to initiation of field delineation work, aerial photography and NRCS soils mapping of the project site
were reviewed for an overview of site characteristics and to determine the characteristics of soils
overlying the project area. Potential hydric soils were identified for evaluation during the field delineation
work.
Wetland delineation and sampling work for the wetlands within the project area were completed using the
methods and techniques specified for "routine on-site delineations" in the publication, Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACOE 1987), and supplemented by the document, Interim Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (USACOE
2010). The project area was evaluated and potential wetland, transition zone, and upland vegetation
communities were identified. Using the three-parameter approach via test hole characteristics, the
wetland/upland boundaries were flagged. Three formal sample point locations (W-1, W-2, and W-3) were
established to characterize the wetland area and adjacent uplands. The sample point locations are
depicted on the attached Wetlands Exhibit map.
T. McKee
1/8/13
Page 2 of 3
At each sample point, percent total cover of dominant plant species was estimated. Species were then
classed as OBL (obligate wetland species), FACW (facultative wetland species), FAC (facultative
species), FACU (facultative upland species) or UPL (upland species), based on the USDA, NRCS 2012
National Wetland Plant List (http://plants.usda.gov/wetland.html). Soil and hydrologic data were also
collected to determine the presence or absence of wetlands at each sample point. A formal field data
sheet was completed for each sample point. In addition to the formal sample point locations, adjunct test
holes were dug, where appropriate, to gain additional vegetation, soil, and hydrologic information used to
aid in the characterization of wetlands, uplands, and transition zones. Data sheets were not completed
for test holes. The outer wetland/upland boundary was flagged with pink fluorescent tape and sample
points were marked with an orange pin flag tied with pink fluorescent tape for subsequent surveying work.
The center portion of the wetland is standing water during the growing season. This portion of the
wetland was an unvegetated mudflat with small areas of frozen, ponded water at the time of the
December 10, 2012 field survey. The outer boundary of the central mudflat was marked with blue
flagging to separate this open water area from vegetated wetlands. Northern Engineering of Fort Collins
surveyed the wetland and mudflat/open water boundaries after the delineation was completed.
The results of the field delineation are summarized in the following section. A location map, habitat map,
wetland map exhibit, and copies of the field data sheets are included as attachments to assist the Corps
in completing its evaluation of this project site.
1.0 RESULTS
NRCS mapping for Larimer County indicates Aquepts, loamy; Aquepts, ponded; Kim Loam; Fort Collins
loam; Nunn clay loam, wet; and Satanta loam are the six soil map units in the project area. The wetland
delineated on the property is within the Aquepts, loamy and Aquepts, ponded soil-mapping units. No
vegetation, soils, or hydrologic characteristics of wetlands were found in the other soil-mapping units in
the project area. The majority of the project area is composed of upland alfalfa hayfield that is associated
with the Kim Loam; Fort Collins loam; Nunn clay loam, wet; and Satanta loam soil-mapping units.
The single, isolated wetland delineated on the property exists in a depression (see attached Figure 2 and
Wetland Exhibit) that appears to collect excess irrigation water and may also be the result of a high water
table. The central portion of this wetland typically holds standing water during the growing season and
supports no vegetation. Test pits could not be dug in the central mudflat area because the ground was
frozen solid, a possible indicator of saturated soils. Small patches of thin layers of ice over some portions
of the mudflat provided further indication of a possible high water table. Vegetated wetlands around this
mudflat/pond area are dominated by common cattail (Typha latifolia, OBL) and hardstem bulrush
(Schoenoplectus acutus, OBL). The outer perimeter portion of the wetland is dominated by reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW). Small stands of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia,
FACU) grow along the eastern wetland perimeter. The survey completed by Northern Engineering
determined the size of the total wetland area to be 8.46 acres with the mudflat/open water portion
comprising 0.97 acre of this total.
Sample point W-1 was established to characterize the perimeter portion of the wetland depression, while
sample point W-2 was established in the more mesic wetland zone around the mudflat open water area.
Adjacent uplands, dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis, UPL) and annual weedy species, are
characterized by sample point W-3. No sample points were established in the alfalfa hayfield portions of
the property outside of the smooth brome and weed dominated areas adjacent to the wetland perimeter.
Table 1 provides a summary of each sample point.
T. McKee
1/8/13
Page 3 of 3
TABLE 1
Summary of Waterfield Property Wetland and Upland Sample Point Characteristics
Sample
Point Dominant Species
Hydric Soil
Indicator(s)
Primary &
Secondary
Hydrology
Indicator(s)
COE
Wetland
W-1 Phalaris arundinacea – FACW F6 B10, C3, D2 PEM1a
W-2 Typha latifolia - OBL F6 A3, C1, B10, C3,
D2 PEM1a
W-3 Bromus inermis – UPL none none none
Jurisdictional Considerations
The wetland delineated on the Waterfield project area is surrounded by alfalfa hayfield uplands and has
no wetland, drainage, or irrigation ditch connection to Waters of the United States.
Terry, the preceding paragraphs summarize the results of the wetland survey completed for the Waterfield
Project Area. Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
INC.
T. Michael Phelan
Principal
attachments: location map, habitat map, wetland exhibit, and data sheets
pc: J. Dullea, Parker Land Investments, LLC.
C. Risheill