Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMONTAVA PUD - ODP - ODP180002 - MONTAVA SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (3)Denver • Durango • Hotchkiss • Idaho www.eroresources.com Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for— HF2M 1637 Pearl Street, Suite 204 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 (303) 830-1188 ERO Project #7037 June 27, 2018 Revised October 9, 2018 Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 i ERO Resources Corporation Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. ii Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Area Location ............................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Ecological Setting ................................................................................................. 2 Vegetation Communities ......................................................................................................... 6 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ............................................................................................. 6 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Project Area Conditions ................................................................................................................... 8 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ................................................................... 12 Potential Habitat and Possible Effects ........................................................................................... 13 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse ................................................................................................. 13 Colorado Butterfly Plant ................................................................................................................ 14 Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid ............................................................................................................. 14 Other Species of Concern ....................................................................................................... 15 Migratory Birds .............................................................................................................................. 15 Other Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 16 Views ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Impacts and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 17 References ............................................................................................................................. 18 Tables Table 1. Wetland and open water features identified in the project area. .................................... 9 Table 2. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in Larimer County or potentially affected by projects in Larimer County. ................................. 12 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5 Appendices Appendix A Photo Log Appendix B Routine Wetland Determination Datasheets Appendix C Commonly Occurring Plant Species in Project Area Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 ii ERO Resources Corporation Executive Summary HF2M retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide an Ecological Characterization Study for an 850-acre property south of Richards Lake Road and west of Interstate 25 (I-25) in Fort Collins, 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, other wildlife, and visual resources. 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 HF2M. 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. – Several small irrigation ditches occur in the project area and the Number 8 Outlet Ditch occurs on the western boundary of the project area. In addition, three wetland swales occur within the project area in the middle of agricultural fields. In a letter dated September 28, 2018, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) stated that the Number 8 Outlet Ditch, Wetland 3, and Wetland 4 are considered waters of the U.S. (NWO-2018-01605-DEN) (Corps 2018). If work is planned within these areas, a Section 404 permit would be required for the placement of fill or dredge material below the OHWM or within the wetlands. In this same letter, the Corps determined that Wetlands 1 and 2, and Irrigation Ditches 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are not jurisdictional. No action is necessary regarding these features. Threatened and Endangered Species – The project area does not contain habitat for any federally listed species. No action is necessary regarding threatened and endangered species. Migratory Birds – An active red-tailed hawk nest was observed in the northeast section of the project area (Figure 2) during the April 2018 site visit. Colorado Parks and Wildlife recommends a ⅓-mile buffer around active red- tailed hawk nests during the breeding season. The Denver Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009) and 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, 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. Other Wildlife – The project area provides habitat for a variety of wildlife including mule deer, white-tailed deer, black bear, coyote, fox, and raccoon. Richards Lake and Long Pond are directly west of the project area, and raptors and other wildlife may occasionally forage within the project area due to the proximity of these natural habitat features. However, because the project area is surrounded by Richards Lake Road, Northeast Frontage Road, and residential development on the west, and due to the lack of vegetation structure within the project area, it is unlikely the project area provides significant habitat for wildlife. Any wildlife using the project area have likely become adapted to human disturbance due to the proximity of I-25. Views – The area surrounding the project area is largely undeveloped, with some commercial buildings to the east, light residential development to the west and south, and agricultural land to the north. The project area is visible from surrounding roads. The mountains to the west, including a view of Long’s Peak, can be easily seen from almost any vantage point within the project area. Richards Lake and Long Pond, located west of the project area, are currently not visible from the project area due to topographic relief and development. ERO Project #6965 1 ERO Resources Corporation Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado June 27, 2018 Revised October 9, 2018 Introduction HF2M retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) for an 850-acre property south of Richards Lake Road and west of Interstate 25 (I-25) in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (project area). On April 12 and June 25, 2018, Moneka Worah and Anica Sunshine with ERO visited the project area to review potential natural resources (2018 site visits). During this assessment, activities included a jurisdictional wetland delineation, identification of potential federally listed threatened and endangered species habitat, 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. 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 bank, shoreline, and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water on the site; (f) areas inhabited by or frequently used by Sensitive and Specially Valued Species; (g) special habitat features; Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 2 ERO Resources Corporation (h) wildlife movement corridors; (i) the general ecological functions provided by the site and its features; (j) any issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological character of the area; and (k) any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of the development project on natural habitats and features. (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 an 850-acre parcel in Sections 32 and 33, Township 8 North, Range 68 West and Section 4, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1). The UTM coordinates for the approximate center of the project area are 498608mE, 4495722mN, Zone 13 North. The longitude/latitude of the project area is 105.016457°W/40.612320°N. The elevation of the project area is approximately 5,000 feet above sea level. Photo points of the project area are shown on Figure 2 and the photo log is included in Appendix A. Summary of Ecological Setting The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) maps the project area within the southern part of the Central High Plains Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA), which is characterized by a flat to gently rolling landscape formed by glacial drift material and sediment deposition from the Rocky Mountains (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2006). This MLRA is part of the Colorado Piedmont section of the Great Plains physiographic province and ranges in elevation from 3,000 to 7,800 feet. The climate of the area is typical of mid-continental semiarid temperate zones, but the strong rain shadow effect of the Southern Rocky Mountains makes the area somewhat drier. The average annual precipitation is between 12 and 18 inches, most of which occurs between April and September. The mean annual temperature is between 45°F and 55°F with the number of frost-free days ranging from 135 to 190. The project area is further divided into the Front Range Fans ecoregion of Colorado (Chapman et al. 2006). The geology of the Front Range Fans ecoregion generally consists of outwash gravels with soils formed from materials weathered from arkosic sedimentary rock, gravelly alluvium, and redbed shales and sandstone. Located within the South Platte River watershed of central Colorado, streams flow from west to east, out of the Front Range Mountains and foothills or from southeast to northwest off the Palmer Divide, and into the South Platte River. The South Platte River converges with the North Platte River just west of Ogallala, Nebraska to form the Platte River. The Platte River is tributary to the Missouri River, which eventually flows into the Mississippi River. Most of the tributaries that flow into Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 3 ERO Resources Corporation the South Platte River watershed contain riparian corridors dominated by deciduous woodlands and transitional shrubs and grasslands. Project Area Prepared for: Chase Merritt File: 6965 Figure 1.mxd (GS) ± June 25, 2018 Figure 1 Vicinity Map Montava Property Natural Resource Assessment Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2016 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 750 1,500 Feet Location Path: P:\6900 Projects\6965 Larimer CR 50 at I-25 Phase 1 ESA-NRA\Maps\NR\Ecological Characterization\6965 Figure 1.mxd Sections 32 and 33, T8N, R68W; Section 4, T7N, R68W; 6th PM UTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 498608mE, 4495722mN Longitude 105.016457°W, Latitude 40.612320°N USGS Fort Collins, CO Quadrangle Larimer County, Colorado !. !. !. !. & & & & & & b [ !"`$ North Timberline Road Richards Lake Road Lari m e r a n d W eld C anal P4 P2 Mountain Vista Drive Giddings Road Number 8 Outlet Ditch, Wetland 4 Wetland 3 Wetland 1 Wetland 2 P3 P6 P1 P5 I r r ig at i o n D itch 2 Irrigation Ditch 1 Irrigation Ditch 3 Irrigation Ditch 4 Irrigation Ditch 5 DP7 DP6 DP5 DP4 DP2 DP3 DP1 Prepared for: Chase Merritt File: 6965 Figure 2.mxd (GS) ± June 26, 2018 Figure 2 Existing Conditions Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 6 ERO Resources Corporation The majority of the ecoregion primarily consists of plains, with a high percentage of cropland. Most of the land use has or is currently undergoing a shift from cropland and rangeland to urban development. The development has resulted in a shift from native habitat to urban areas that contain a high number of manmade lakes and gravel pits. Vegetation Communities The project area is bounded by agricultural land to the north, industrial buildings to the east, and residential development to the south and west (Figure 2). Multiple vegetation communities exist within the project area. The primary vegetation communities within the project area consist of agricultural land and disturbed uplands (Figure 2; Photos 1 and 2). Additionally, smaller scattered upland grassland communities exist between the agricultural fields. The upland vegetation is a mixture of smooth brome (Bromus inermis), alfalfa (Medicago sp.), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), sunflower (Helianthus sp.), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), wheat (Triticum sp.), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). A few tree groves are also located sporadically throughout the project area and are dominated by elm (Ulmus sp.), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), cottonwood (Populus sp.), juniper (Juniperus sp.), pine (Pinus sp.), aspen (Populus sp.), and other ornamental trees. These tree groves are fairly small and do not provide significant habitat within the project area. Rural residential properties are located in the northern half of the project area. Several small irrigation ditches are located throughout the project area (Figure 2). In addition, the Number 8 Outlet Ditch runs along the western boundary of the project area (Figure 2). A few wetland swales also occur in the middle of the agricultural fields (Figure 2; Photos 3 and 4). 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 fill or dredged material into wetlands and other waters of the U.S. The Corps defines waters of the U.S. as “all navigable waters and their tributaries, all interstate waters and their tributaries, all wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all impoundments of these waters.” On May 31, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that approved jurisdictional determinations are judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act and, therefore, can be appealed in court. The Corps has recommended that requests for both approved and preliminary jurisdictional determinations be done using new guidance outlined in Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 16-01 and that the form in Appendix 1 of the RGL be completed (Corps 2016). The Corps has indicated that jurisdictional determinations associated with a Section 404 CWA Permit request will preside over Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 7 ERO Resources Corporation standalone jurisdictional determination requests. While ERO may provide its opinion on the likely jurisdictional status of wetlands and waters, the Corps makes the final determination. Methods 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 (1987 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). Although the project area is more than 5 acres, it was determined the routine method was appropriate and the transect method was not necessary. This is based on the determination that, using ERO’s previous desktop mapping, the area of wetlands within the project area is less than 1 acre. 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), and nomenclature was determined using the PLANTS Database (USDA, NRCS 2018a). Commonly occurring plant species in the project area, including the wetland indicator status, are listed in Appendix C. 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 was 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.” Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 8 ERO Resources Corporation The boundaries of identified wetlands and other characteristics of a 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 5.4 software. GPS data were incorporated using ESRI® ArcGIS Desktop software. Additionally, where appropriate, wetlands were drawn on georectified aerials and then digitized. Project Area Conditions Streams and Open Water Prior to the 2018 site visits, ERO reviewed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle topographic maps, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and aerial photography to identify mapped streams and areas of open water that could indicate wetlands or waters of the U.S. The USGS Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle and NHD do not show any natural drainages occurring within the project area. The Number 8 Outlet Ditch is shown on the USGS Fort Collins topographic quadrangle and NHD as occurring along the western boundary of the project area (Figure 2). The Number 8 Outlet Ditch is 15 to 20 feet wide within the project area and contains patches of fringe wetlands dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), sedge (Carex sp.), and speedwell (Veronica sp.) (Photo 6). The ditch has very steep upland banks dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis), sunflower (Helianthus sp.), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and kochia (Bassia prostrata). A few scattered Russian olive trees (Elaeagnus angustifolia) also occur along the ditch. The Number 8 Outlet Ditch connects to the Larimer and Weld Canal, which connects to Eaton Ditch. Ultimately, Eaton Ditch flows to Owl Creek, which subsequently flows to Lone Tree Creek. Lone Tree Creek is a tributary to the South Platte River, a TNW. Two concrete-lined irrigation ditches occur in the northeast portion of the project area and one concrete- lined ditch occurs in the southeast portion of the project area (Figure 2; Photo 5). No wetland vegetation was observed along these irrigation ditches during the April 2018 site visit. The smaller irrigation ditches in the project area do not appear to have a surface connection to any known waters of the U.S. Approximately 0.98 acre of open water occur within the project area. The project area is within Hydrologic Unit 101900070805. Wetlands During the 2018 site visits, ERO surveyed the project area for potential isolated wetlands, jurisdictional wetlands, and other waters of the U.S. Prior to the 2018 site visits, ERO reviewed 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. 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. Each data point was given a label that corresponds to a location shown on Figure 2 and routine wetland determination forms in Appendix B. The following sections contain information on potential surface water connections of wetlands and other waters within the Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 9 ERO Resources Corporation project area. Table 1 provides a summary of the mapped areas, including Cowardin classification and hydrogeomorphic classification (HGM) for each wetland. Approximately 2.26 acres of wetlands occur within the project area (Figure 2). Table 1. Wetland and open water features identified in the project area. Water/Wetland ID Longitude Latitude Feature Size (Acre) Cowardin Classification HGM Potential Nonjurisdictional Features Irrigation Ditch 1 105.017988 40.620461 0.011 NA NA Irrigation Ditch 2 105.015416 40.618421 0.031 NA NA Irrigation Ditch 3 105.016334 40.617299 0.042 NA NA Irrigation Ditch 4 105.019739 40.605352 0.038 NA NA Irrigation Ditch 5 105.007283 40.607168 0.047 NA NA Wetland 1 105.019183 40.608885 0.42 Palustrine Emergent Depressional Wetland 2 105.025710 40.618220 0.72 Palustrine Emergent Depressional Wetland 3 105.028013 40.618531 0.30 Palustrine Emergent Depressional Wetland 4 105.029117 40.615691 0.813 Palustrine Emergent Riverine Potential Jurisdictional Features Number 8 Outlet Ditch 105.029117 40.615691 0.814 NA NA Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is in the southeastern portion of the project area, just south of Mountain Vista Drive (Figure 2). Wetland 1 appears to be supported by agricultural runoff and stormwater flows. Wetland 1 appears to be isolated, with no surface connection to any known waters of the U.S., and is described in more detail below. Vegetation Emergent wetlands (Wetland 1) were delineated in the project area adjacent to a disturbed upland and agricultural field in the southeastern portion of the project area. Wetland 1 is dominated by cattail (Typha latifolia) and reed canarygrass. Other vegetation observed included Canada thistle. At data point (DP)1 and DP3, the vegetation met the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. DP2 consisted primarily of upland species and did not meet the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. Soils The NRCS mapped the soils in this area as Aquepts, loamy (USDA, NRCS 2018b). Field observations revealed that soils primarily consisted of clay within 12 inches of the soil surface, sandy clay within 7 inches of the soil surface, and loamy clay within 14 inches of the soil surface. At DP1, the soils contained a matrix color of 10YR 3/2 within 2 inches of the soil surface and a matrix color of 10YR 4/1 with a redox color of 2.5Y 5/6 from 2 to 14 inches below the soil surface. At DP3, the soils contained a matrix color of 10YR 3/2, with redox features of 7.5Y 4/6 within 12 inches of the soil surface. At DP1, the soils met the Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 10 ERO Resources Corporation depleted matrix indicator. At DP3, the soils met the redox dark surface indicator. No hydric soil indicators were observed at DP2. See Appendix B for additional details on soils for each data point. Hydrology Primary hydrologic indicators, including a high water table at a depth of 2 inches and saturation at the soil surface, were observed at DP1. Primary hydrologic indicators, including oxidized rhizospheres on living roots, were observed at DP3. Secondary hydrologic indicators at DP3 included the FAC-Neutral test. No hydrology indicators were observed at DP2. Wetland 2 Wetland 2 is in the northwestern portion of the project area, just east of the Number 8 Outlet Ditch (Figure 2). Wetland 2 appears to be supported by agricultural runoff and/or stormwater flows. Wetland 2 appears to be isolated, with no surface connection to any known waters of the U.S., and is described in more detail below. Vegetation Emergent wetlands (Wetland 2) were delineated in the project area adjacent to a mixed upland grassland and a tilled field in the northwestern portion of the project area. The wetlands are dominated by cattail. Other vegetation observed included Canada thistle and milkweed (Asclepias sp.). At DP4, the vegetation met the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. DP5 consisted primarily of upland species and did not meet the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. Soils The NRCS mapped the soils in this area as Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (USDA, NRCS 2018b). Hydric soils were assumed at DP4 based on the prevalence of obligate wetland species and inundation of the soils. No soil data were collected at DP5 based on the presence of upland vegetation. See Appendix B for additional details on soils for each data point. Hydrology Primary hydrologic indicators, including surface water to a depth of 2 inches, a high water table at the soil surface, and saturation at the soil surface, were observed at DP4. No hydrology indicators were observed at DP5. Wetland 3 Wetland 3 is in the northwestern portion of the project area and is adjacent to the Number 8 Outlet Ditch (Figure 2). Wetland 3 appears to be supported by agricultural runoff. Wetland 3 flows into Number 8 Outlet Ditch within the project area and is described in more detail below. Vegetation Emergent wetlands (Wetland 3) were delineated in the project area adjacent to a mixed upland grassland and a tilled field in the northwestern portion of the project area. The wetlands are dominated by cattail. At DP6, the vegetation met the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. DP7 consisted primarily of upland species and did not meet the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 11 ERO Resources Corporation Soils The NRCS mapped the soils in this area as Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (USDA, NRCS 2018b). Hydric soils were assumed at DP6 based on a prevalence of obligate wetland species and inundation. Soils were assumed hydric at DP7 based on the presence of upland vegetation. See Appendix B for additional details on soils for each data point. Hydrology Primary hydrologic indicators, including surface water to a depth of 2 inches, a high water table at the soil surface, and saturation at the soil surface, were observed at DP6. No hydrology indicators were observed at DP7. Wetland 4 Wetland 4 is located along the Number 8 Outlet Ditch, which runs along the western boundary of the project area (Figure 2). Wetland 4 consists primarily of small fringe wetlands located intermittently along the ditch channel and are dominated by reed canarygrass, sedge, and speedwell. Due to the steepness of the ditch banks, no soil pits were dug and no data points were taken along Wetland 4. Wetland Functions During the 2018 site visits, ERO identified ecological stressors in the wetlands. An understanding of the ecological functions of the stream and adjacent wetland and riparian areas can assist in the analysis and mitigation of potential impacts. Studies have recognized that riverine and palustrine systems provide particular functions to the environment. These functions are the chemical, physical, and biological processes or attributes vital to the integrity of riparian systems. Researchers recognize a variety of wetland and riparian functions that typically are related to water quality, biodiversity, and hydrological and ecological processes. The wetlands in the project area are low functioning due their location within agricultural fields or along ditches. Most of the wetlands in the project area are located in isolated pockets and are dominated by cattail or reed canarygrass and do not contain a high diversity of species or a variety of structure. Additionally, the wetlands appear to be supported by agricultural and stormwater runoff, not natural surface or groundwater flows. Most of the wetlands are immediately adjacent to upland areas that appear to receive nutrient runoff from nearby agricultural areas. However, the wetlands likely provide habitat for wildlife or migratory birds and could potentially serve as a wildlife corridor through the project area. Overall, the wetlands in the project area are low functioning. Recommendations On September 28, 2018, the Corps issued a jurisdictional determination for the isolated irrigation ditches and wetlands on the Montava property (Corps 2018). The Corps determined that the Number 8 Outlet Ditch, Wetland 3, and Wetland 4 are waters of the U.S. If work is planned within these areas, a Section 404 permit would be required for the placement of fill or dredge material below the OHWM or within the wetlands. The Corps determined that Wetlands 1 and 2, and Irrigation Ditches 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are not jurisdictional. No action is necessary regarding these features. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 12 ERO Resources Corporation Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species During the 2018 site visits, 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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 Larimer County or potentially affected by projects in Larimer County. Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Habitat Present Mammals Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes E Open grasslands, steppe, and shrub steppe No habitat Canada lynx Lynx Canadensis T Dense boreal forests with high density of snowshoe hares No habitat North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus PT Cold conditions with deep persistent snow cover No habitat Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Preble’s) Zapus hudsonius preblei T Shrub riparian and wet meadows No habitat Birds Interior least tern** Sterna antillarum athalassos E Sandy/pebble beaches on lakes, reservoirs, and rivers No habitat, no depletions anticipated Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida T Old-growth or mature forests, uneven aged stands with high canopy closure, high tree density No habitat Piping plover** Charadrius melodus T Sandy lakeshore beaches and river sandbars No habitat, no depletions anticipated Whooping crane** Grus americana E Mudflats around reservoirs and in agricultural areas No habitat, no depletions anticipated Fish Bonytail chub Gila elegans E Mainstem rivers with deep, swift water No habitat Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius E Medium to large rivers, with deep turbid strongly flowing water No habitat Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias T Cold, clear foothill and mountain Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 13 ERO Resources Corporation Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Habitat Present Plants Colorado butterfly plant (CBP) Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis T Subirrigated alluvial soils on level floodplains and drainage bottoms between 5,000 and 6,400 feet in elevation No habitat North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula E Eroded soil outcrops of barren exposures of the Coalmont Formation between 8,000 and 8,300 feet in elevation No habitat 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 No habitat Western prairie fringed orchid** Platanthera praeclara T Mesic and wet prairies, sedge meadows No habitat, no depletions anticipated *T = Federally Threatened Species; E = Federally Endangered Species; PT = Proposed Threatened; C = Candidate Species. **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 2018. Potential Habitat and Possible Effects Suitable habitat for black-footed ferret, Canada lynx, North American wolverine, Mexican spotted owl, bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, greenback cutthroat trout, razorback sucker, Arapahoe snowfly, and North Park phacelia was not observed within the project area. The interior least tern, piping plover, whooping crane, pallid sturgeon, and western prairie fringed orchid are species that are affected by depletions to the Platte River system. Based on ERO’s knowledge of the types of activities likely to be implemented as part of the project, there would be no depletions to the South Platte River. If the project includes activities that deplete water in the South Platte River, such as diverting water from a stream or developing new water supplies, these species could be affected by the project and consultation with the Service may be required. Potential habitat for Preble’s, CBP, and ULTO is generally more prevalent in areas across the Front Range. Because these species are more likely to be addressed by counties and regulatory agencies such as the Corps, a more detailed discussion is provided below. Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Species Background Preble’s was listed as a threatened species on May 13, 1998. Under existing regulations, either a habitat assessment or a full presence/absence survey for Preble’s is required for any habitat-disturbing activity within areas determined to be potential Preble’s habitat (generally stream and riparian habitats along the Colorado Front Range). Typically, Preble’s occurs below 7,600 feet in elevation, generally in lowlands with medium to high moisture along permanent or intermittent streams and canals (Meaney et al. 1997). Preble’s occurs in low undergrowth consisting of grasses and forbs, in open wet meadows, Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 14 ERO Resources Corporation in riparian corridors near forests, or where multilevel shrubs and low trees provide adequate cover (Service 1999; Meaney et al. 1997). Potential Habitat and Recommendations During the 2018 site visits, ERO assessed the project area for potential Preble’s habitat. The project area is dominated by agricultural land and weedy nonnative vegetation species and does not contain any potential habitat for Preble’s. The project area does not contain a sufficient shrub cover by sandbar willow and other riparian shrubs that are typically associated with known Preble’s habitat. The potential wetland swales are also dominated by cattail and not the wet meadow habitat typically associated with Preble’s. The closest known population of Preble’s is more than 7 miles northwest of the project area, and several habitat assessments and trapping surveys have been completed near the project area in better habitat with no Preble’s or suitable Preble’s habitat identified (URS Greiner Woodwar 2004, Colorado Urban Wild 2000, Wildland Consultant 1999). Because the project area does not contain any potential habitat for Preble’s, no further action is necessary. Colorado Butterfly Plant Species Background The CBP is a short-lived perennial herb found in moist areas of floodplains. It occurs on subirrigated alluvial soils on level or slightly sloping floodplains and drainage bottoms at elevations between 5,000 and 6,400 feet. Colonies are often found in low depressions or along bends in wide, active, meandering stream channels that are periodically disturbed. Historically, the main cause of disturbance was probably flooding (Service 2005). The CBP flowers from June to September and produces fruit from July to October (Spackman et al. 1997). This species is federally listed as threatened under the ESA and is found within a small area in southeastern Wyoming, western Nebraska, and north-central Colorado (NatureServe 2012). Critical habitat for CBP has been designated in southeastern Wyoming (Service 2005). Potential Habitat and Recommendations Habitat for CBP is not present in the project area because a perennial stream with an active floodplain does not occur in the project area. No action is necessary regarding CBP. Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid Species Background ULTO is federally listed as threatened. ULTO occurs at elevations below 7,800 feet in moist to wet alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial streams, and around springs and lakes where the soil is seasonally saturated within 18 inches of the surface. Generally, the species occurs where the vegetative cover is relatively open and not overly dense or overgrazed. Once thought to be fairly common in low- elevation riparian areas in the interior western United States, ULTO is now rare (Service 1992a). The species’ known range has been extended since the Service ruled to list ULTO as a threatened species in Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 15 ERO Resources Corporation 1992, from Colorado and Wyoming to British Columbia. The largest known populations occur in Utah, followed by Colorado (NatureServe 2012). In Colorado, the Service requires surveys in habitat within the 100-year floodplain of the South Platte River, Fountain Creek, and Yampa River and their perennial tributaries, or in any area with suitable habitat in Boulder and Jefferson Counties. ULTO does not bloom until late July to early September (depending on the year) and timing of surveys must be synchronized with blooming (Service 1992b). Potential Habitat and Recommendations ERO assessed the project area for potential ULTO habitat. Because a perennial tributary to the South Platte River does not occur in the project area and the project area is in Larimer County, the site does not fall within the Service’s guidelines for ULTO surveys. No action is necessary regarding ULTO. Other Species of Concern Migratory Birds Background Migratory birds, as well as their eggs and nests, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (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, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has recommended buffers for nesting raptors, depending on the species (generally ⅓ or ¼ mile) (Colorado Division of Wildlife (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 During the April 2018 site visit, an active red-tailed hawk nest was observed in the northeast section of the project area in a cottonwood tree (Figure 2). CPW recommends a ⅓-mile buffer from active red- tailed hawk nests (CDOW 2008). Other bird species observed during the April 2018 site visit included magpie, meadowlark, blue heron, and mallard. Bird species observed during the June 2018 site visit included blue heron and red-tailed hawk. Songbirds likely occur within the upland grasslands, wetland swales, and small grove of trees that occur in the project area. The breeding season for most birds in Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 16 ERO Resources Corporation Colorado is March through August, with the exception of a few species that begin breeding in February, such as great-horned owls. Recommendations Vegetation removal should occur outside of the breeding season (typically September through February). 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 great horned owls and red-tailed hawks, 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. Nest removal 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 is within the overall range of mule deer, white-tailed deer, and black bear. Richards Lake, Long Pond, and the Redwing Marsh natural area are west of the project area, and wildlife may occasionally forage within the project area due to the proximity of these natural habitat features. However, because the project area is surrounded by Richards Lake Road, I-25, and residential development on the west, and due to the lack of vegetation structure within the project area, it is unlikely the project area provides significant wildlife habitat. Furthermore, no wildlife movement corridors exist within the project area boundaries, and the Number 8 Outlet Ditch is too steep and degraded to provide any wildlife habitat or serve as a movement corridor. Any wildlife using the project area have likely become adapted to human disturbance. 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 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 area is largely undeveloped, with some commercial buildings to the east and light residential development to the west and south. The project area is visible from Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 17 ERO Resources Corporation surrounding roads. The mountains to the west, including Long’s Peak, can be easily seen from almost any vantage point within the project area. Richards Lake and Long Pond, located west of the project area, are currently not visible from the project area due to topographic relief and vegetation. Impacts and Recommendations HF2M proposes to develop the project area for residential and commercial use. Section 3.4.1 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code calls for buffers of various widths around natural habitats and special features. However, the project area provides little ecological function due to the separation from the nearest natural area (Redwing Marsh), located 2 miles west of the project area, and little vegetation structure within the project area. The project area contains some grassland and woodland habitat that provides habitat for wildlife and migratory birds; however, these areas are scattered between agricultural fields and are not large enough to provide high-quality wildlife habitat. Most of the vegetation would be removed from the project area during construction; however, trees would be preserved where possible. The Number 8 Outlet Ditch contains wetland fringes along the toe of slope, although due to its steep banks, it is likely only used occasionally by wildlife. HF2M is proposing to regrade and relocate the Number 8 Outlet Ditch as part of the project. The ditch would be designed to meander through the western border of the project area and function closer to a natural stream with gentle slopes and wetland benches, which would improve wildlife habitat and ecological functions. HF2M is also proposing to create small channels or swales through the project area to direct stormwater flows. These drainages would be planted with native seed mixes, shrubs, and trees that would also provide habitat for wildlife and serve as a wildlife corridor through the project area. The proposed project would impact 2.26 acres of wetlands within the project area. As discussed above, these wetlands are low functioning and most are isolated and likely nonjurisdictional. HF2M is proposing to mitigate for all wetland impacts by creating wetlands along the drainages constructed through the project area. The proposed wetlands along the drainages would likely be higher functioning than those being impacted because they would be planted with native species, have less nutrient runoff and higher water quality, be adjacent to native seeded uplands, and provide a larger wildlife movement corridor. Before any impacts occur, a jurisdictional determination would be requested from the Corps. A Section 404 CWA permit would be requested from the Corps for the impacts on the Number 8 Outlet Ditch and any other areas determined jurisdictional. Wildlife likely occasionally use the project area; however, because the project area is predominantly agricultural fields, habitat quality through the project area is low. Wildlife habitat is expected to be the same or better following construction due to the improvements along the Number 8 Outlet Ditch and planting native vegetation. Although wildlife habitat would be maintained or improved over the long term, wildlife use of the project area would likely decrease due to increased human presence and use of the area after construction. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 18 ERO Resources Corporation If vegetation- or land-clearing activities 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. Chapman, S.S., G.E. Griggith, J.M. Omernik, A.B. Price, and D.L. Schrupp. 2006. Ecoregions of Colorado (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,200,000). ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/co/co_front.pdf. 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 November 1, 2017. Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado Raptor Nests. February. Colorado Urban Wild. 2000. Trapping survey results submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Reference provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2014). Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report 7- 87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 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 April 26, 2017. Meaney, C.A., A. Deans, N.W. Clippenger, M. Rider, N. Daly, and M. O’Shea-Stone. 1997. Third year survey for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. Under contract to Colorado Division of Wildlife. Boulder, CO. NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. URS Greiner Woodwar. 2004. Trapping survey results submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Reference provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2014). 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. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2016. Regulatory Guidance Letter 16-01. http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/rgl_6-01_app1-2.pdf?ver=2016-11-01- 091706-840. Last accessed December 21, 2016. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 19 ERO Resources Corporation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2018. Approved Jurisdictional Determination for Isolated Irrigation Ditches and Wetlands, Larimer County, Colorado. Corps File No. NWO-2018-01605-DEN. September 28. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Agriculture Handbook 296. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018a. The PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. May 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018b. Department of Agriculture. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Last accessed May 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1992a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule to List the Plant Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies’-tresses) as a Threatened Species. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17, Vol. 57, No. 12, pp. 2048-2054. January 17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1992b. Interim Survey Requirements for Spiranthes diluvialis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1999. Survey Guidelines for Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. USFWS, Colorado Field Office. Last revised April 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2003. Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. April 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designated Critical Habitat for Colorado Butterfly Plant, Final Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 7. January 11. 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). 2018. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC). https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Last accessed May 16, 2018. Weber, W.A. and R.C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope. 4th edition. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. Wildland Consultant. 1999. Trapping survey results submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Reference provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2014). Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix A Photo Log MONTAVA PROPERTY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PHOTO LOG APRIL 12, 2018 Photo 1 ‐ Overview of agricultural land in the project area. View is to the east. Photo 2 ‐ Overview of disturbed uplands in the project area. View is to the east. MONTAVA PROPERTY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PHOTO LOG APRIL 12, 2018 Photo 3 ‐ Wetlands (Wetland 3) along a swale in the project area. View is to the southwest. Photo 4 ‐ Wetlands (Wetland 2) along a swale in the project area. View is to the northwest. MONTAVA PROPERTY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PHOTO LOG APRIL 12, 2018 Photo 5 ‐ Irrigation ditch in the project area. View is to the southwest. Photo 6 ‐ Number 8 Outlet Ditch located along the western property boundary north of Mountain Vista Drive. View is to the south. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix B Routine Wetland Determination 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: ) 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 0-2 2-14 10YR 3/2 10YR 4/1 100 98 2.5Y 5/6 2 C M loamy clay loamy clay 2 0 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: ) 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 0-7 10YR 3/2 100 none sandy clay No redox features observed. No hydrology indicators observed. 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: ) 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 0-12 10YR 3/2 95 7.5Y 4/6 5 C M Clay 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: ) 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 Soils assumed based on obligate species and inundation. 2 0 0 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: ) 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 Did not dig based on upland vegetation. No indicators observed. 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: ) 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 Did not dig based on obligate species and inundation. 2 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: ) 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 Did not dig based on prevalence of upland vegetation. No hydrologic indicators. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix C Commonly Occurring Plant Species in Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator Status* Herbaceous Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Facultative Upland Cattail Typha L. Obligate Wetland Milkweed Asclepias L. Facultative Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola Facultative Reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea Facultative Wetland Saltgrass Distichlis spicata Facultative Wetland Smooth brome Bromus inermis Upland Sweetclover Melilotus L. Facultative Upland Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Facultative Upland *Obligate Wetland—Occurs with an estimated 99% probability in wetlands. Facultative Wetland—Estimated 67%–99% probability of occurrence in wetlands. Facultative—Equally likely to occur in wetlands and nonwetlands (34%–66% probability). Facultative Upland—67%–99% probability in nonwetlands, 1%–33% in wetlands. Upland—>99% probability in nonwetlands in this region. Source: Ackerfield 2015; Lichvar et al. 2016; USDA/NRCS 2018a; Weber and Wittmann 2012. 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: Montava Development Fort Collins/Larimer 4/12/2018 City of Fort Collins CO DP7 M. Worah, A. Sunshine Section 32, T8N, R68W; 6th PM terrace G 40.6188152809 105.02698524 NAD83 Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes none NN N NN N Terrace above ditch. 30' x 30' 0 0 3 15' x 15' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5' x 5' 50 200 Cirsium arvense Pascopyrum smithii Melilotus sp. 45 20 20 10 95 Y Y Y N UPL FACU FACU FACU 45 225 95 425 4.47 5 Bromus inermis 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: Montava Development Fort Collins/Larimer 4/12/2018 City of Fort Collins CO DP6 M. Worah, A. Sunshine Section 32, T8N, R68W; 6th PM ditch/swale none 1 G 40.618800 105.026972 NAD83 Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes none NN N NN N Wetlands within ditch/swale. 30' x 30' 0 1 1 15' x 15' 100 0 75 75 0 0 0 0 5' x 5' 5 20 Bromus inermis Cirsium arvense 75 10 5 90 Y N N OBL UPL FACU 10 50 90 145 1.61 0 10 Typha latifolia 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: Montava Development Fort Collins/Larimer 4/12/2018 City of Fort Collins CO DP5 M. Worah, A. Sunshine Section 32, T8N, R68W; 6th PM G 40.617304 105.024873 NAD83 Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes none NN N NN N Upland terrace. 30' x 30' 0 0 1 15' x 15' 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 5' x 5' 75 300 Pascopyrum smithii Asclepias sp. Bromus inermis 5 70 5 15 95 N Y N N FACU FACU FAC UPL 15 75 95 390 4.11 0 5 Cirsium arvense 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: Montava Development Fort Collins/Larimer 4/12/2018 City of Fort Collins CO DP4 M. Worah, A. Sunshine Section 32, T8N, R68W; 6th PM G 40.617290 105.024886 NAD83 Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes none NN N NN N Ditch/swale. 30' x 30' 0 1 1 15' x 15' 100 0 75 75 0 0 2 6 5' x 5' 5 20 Cirsium arvense Asclepias sp. 75 5 2 82 Y N N OBL FACU FAC 0 0 82 101 1.23 0 18 Typha latifolia 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: Montava Development Fort Collins/Larimer 4/12/2018 City of Fort Collins CO DP3 M. Worah, A. Sunshine Section 4, T7N, R68W; 6th PM swale none G 40.609657 105.019809 NAD83 Aquepts, loamy none NN N NN N 30' x 30' 0 1 1 15' x 15' 100 0 0 0 90 180 0 0 5' x 5' 5 20 Cirsium arvense 90 5 95 Y N FACW FACU 0 0 95 200 2.11 0 5 Phalaris arundinacea 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: Montava Development Fort Collins/Larimer 4/12/2018 City of Fort Collins CO DP2 M. Worah, A. Sunshine Section 4, T7N, R68W; 6th PM terrace none G 40.609219 105.019627 NAD83 Aquepts, loamy none NN N NN N Upland terrace adjacent to swale. 30' x 30' 0 1 2 15' x 15' 50 0 0 0 40 80 0 0 5' x 5' 20 80 Cirsium arvense Pascopyrum smithii Lactuca serriola Distichlis spicata 25 10 5 5 40 85 Y N N N Y UPL FACU FACU FACU FACW 25 125 85 285 3.35 0 Bromus inermis 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: Montava Development Fort Collins/Larimer 4/12/2018 City of Fort Collins CO DP1 M. Worah, A. Sunshine Section 4, T7N, R68W; 6th PM swale convex 2 G 40.609231 105.019606 NAD83 Aquepts, loamy none NN N NN N Wetland swale. 30' x 30' 0 2 2 15' x 15' 100 0 40 40 20 40 0 0 5' x 5' 10 40 Phalaris arundinacea Cirsium arvense 40 20 10 70 Y Y N OBL FACW FACU 0 0 70 120 1.71 0 30 Typha latifolia waters of the Arkansas and South Platte Rivers No habitat, no depletions anticipated Pallid sturgeon** Scaphirhynchus albus E Large, turbid, free-flowing rivers with a strong current and gravel or sandy substrate No habitat, no depletions anticipated Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus E Medium to large rivers, with a moderate to low gradient No habitat Insects Arapahoe snowfly Arsapnia arapahoe C Streams with steep slopes, riparian vegetation, and pebble substrate No habitat Montava Property Natural Resource Assessment 0 750 1,500 Feet P ath: P:\6900 Projects\6965 Larimer CR 50 at I-25 Phase 1 ESA-NRA\Maps\NR\Ecological Characterization\6965 Figure 2.mxd Image Source: Google Earth©, September 2016 b [Active Red-tailed Hawk Nest & Photo Point Project Area Boundary Irrigation Ditch Wetland Vegetation Communities Agricultural Field Alfalfa Field Disturbed/Developed Mixed Upland Grassland