The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUN COMMUNITIES - THE FOOTHILLS - PDP210001 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - ECS REPORT Denver • Durango • Hotchkiss • Idaho www.eroresources.com Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado Prepared for— Sun Communities, Inc. 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 200 Southfield, Michigan 48034 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 (303) 830-1188 ERO Project #10761 March 17, 2021 Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 i ERO Resources Corporation Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ iii Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Area Location ............................................................................................................... 2 Project Area Description .......................................................................................................... 2 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ............................................................................................. 6 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Project Area Conditions ................................................................................................................... 6 Description of Wetlands and Other Waters ..................................................................................... 8 Natural Area Buffer and Buffer Mitigation ............................................................................. 16 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ................................................................... 16 Other Species of Concern ....................................................................................................... 21 Black-Tailed Prairie Dog ................................................................................................................. 21 Western Burrowing Owl ................................................................................................................ 22 Raptors and Migratory Birds .......................................................................................................... 22 Other Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 24 Views ..................................................................................................................................... 24 References ............................................................................................................................. 24 Tables Table 1. Wetland area and Cowardin classification. ....................................................................... 8 Table 2. Variable scores for FACWet method. .............................................................................. 10 Table 3. Functional capacity index scores. .................................................................................... 11 Table 4. Wetland seed mix – clay and alkali soils ......................................................................... 12 Table 5. Riparian seed mix – loamy to clay soils. .......................................................................... 13 Table 6. Upland area seed mix – loamy to clay soils. .................................................................... 13 Table 7. Natural area buffer riparian plantings. ............................................................................ 14 Table 8. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in the project area or potentially affected by projects in the project area. ...................................... 17 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5 Figure 3. Proposed Impacts ........................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4. Natural Areas and Wetland Mitigation ........................................................................... 20 Appendices Appendix A Photo Log Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ii ERO Resources Corporation Appendix B Wetland Delineation Datasheets Appendix C Approved Jurisdictional Determination Appendix D FACWet Assessment Appendix E U.S. Fish and Wildlife No Concerns Letter Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 iii ERO Resources Corporation Executive Summary Sun Communities, Inc. (Sun Communities) retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide an Ecological Characterization Study for the proposed 6750 College Avenue project in Larimer County, Colorado (project area). ERO assessed the project area for potential wetlands and waters of the U.S., potential federally listed threatened and endangered species habitat, migratory birds and active nests, and other wildlife. Below is a summary of the resources found at the project area and recommendations or future actions necessary based on the current site conditions and regulations. The natural resources and associated regulations described in this report are valid as of the date of this report and may be relied upon for the specific use for which it was prepared by ERO under contract to Sun Communities. Because of their dynamic natures, site conditions and regulations should be reconfirmed by a qualified consultant before relying on this report for a use other than that for which it was specifically prepared. Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. – Two wetlands (Wetland 1 and Wetland 2) and an unnamed ditch occur in the project area. On January 28, 2020, the Corps determined that Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and the Unnamed Ditch are not considered waters of the U.S. and are not jurisdictional (Appendix C). Because Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and the Unnamed Ditch are not waters of U.S., a Section 404 permit is not required for any work within those features. The proposed project would result in impacts on 0.386 acre of low-quality wetlands and 1.12 acres of moderate-quality wetlands. To mitigate for the impacts on 0.386 acre of low-quality wetlands and 1.12 acres of moderate-quality wetlands, Sun Communities is proposing to construct Approximately 1.506 acre of wetlands along the undisturbed portions of Wetland 1 in the proposed detention pond to provide wetland mitigation. Threatened and Endangered Species – The project area does not contain habitat for any federally listed species. On February 3, 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) made a No Concerns determination for the proposed project (Appendix E). Prairie Dogs – The project area contains active black-tailed prairie dog colonies north and south of Wetland 1. If prairie dog removal becomes necessary, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recommends removing them in a humane manner before any earthwork or construction takes place. Sun Communities is proposing to use the City of Fort Collins Fee-In-Lieu program to mitigate for the impacts on 24.015 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. To prevent future human-wildlife conflict with prairie dogs on portions of the project area that would border active prairie dog colonies to the southeast, Sun Communities is proposing to install a combination of fencing and tall grasses to prevent dispersal into the development. Burrowing Owls – Burrowing owls could be impacted by the project if work would occur within the CPW-recommended 150-foot buffer of any prairie dog burrows, including burrows within 150 feet from the project area (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2008). If work would occur within the recommended buffer of any burrow during the breeding season (March through October), a burrowing owl survey should be conducted. If owls are present in the project area, activities should be restricted within 150 feet of nest burrows until the owls have migrated from the site, which can be determined through monitoring. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 iv ERO Resources Corporation Migratory Birds – Migratory birds, including raptors, and any active nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. ERO did not observe any active nests in the project area during the 2020 or 2019 site visits. ERO observed a potential red-tailed hawk nest south and outside of the project area. Additionally, the cattail wetlands in the project area are potential red-winged blackbird nesting habitat. The Denver Field Office of the Service (2009) and Colorado Department of Transportation (2011) have identified the primary nesting season for migratory birds in eastern Colorado as occurring from April 1 through August 31. However, some birds, such as the red-tailed hawk and great horned owl, can nest as early as February or March. Because of variability in the breeding seasons of various bird species, ERO recommends a nest survey be conducted within one week prior to construction to determine if any active nests are present in the project area so they can be avoided. If active nests are found, any work that would destroy the nests could not be conducted until the birds have vacated the nests. If possible, ground-clearing activities should occur outside of the April 1 through August 31 migratory bird breeding season. If construction activities would occur during the migratory bird breeding season, a nest survey should be conducted immediately prior to construction. Other Wildlife –The project area occurs within mule deer, white-tailed deer, mountain lion, and black bear overall range. No other sensitive species occur within the project area that would be significantly adversely affected by the proposed project. The project area provides marginally suitable habitat for a variety of wildlife including coyote, fox, and raccoon. The prairie dog colonies within the project area provide prey for raptors and other wildlife, and it is likely raptors forage in these areas. The prairie dog colonies also likely provide burrows for cottontail rabbits, bull and rattlesnakes and other ground dwelling wildlife. However, because the project area is bounded on all sides by residential development, and due to the lack of vegetation structure within the project area, it is unlikely the project area provides significant habitat for these species or other wildlife. Any wildlife using the project area have likely become adapted to human disturbance due to the proximity of extensive human development. Overall, surrounding and continuing development contributes to a decline in the number and diversity of wildlife species nearby and to a change in species composition. Views – The area surrounding the project consists entirely of residential development. Due to the project area’s location in a large depression, portions of the Front Range are only visible in the eastern half of the project area. ERO Project #10761 1 ERO Resources Corporation 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado March 17, 2021 Introduction Sun Communities retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) for a proposed development project at 6750 College Avenue in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (project area). On March 16, 2020, Hidde Snieder with ERO conducted a site visit from public roads to assess potential natural resources in the project area (2020 site visit). ERO previously assessed the project for potential wetlands and federally listed threatened and endangered species habitat (2019 site visit). During the 2020 site visit, activities included a review of the wetland quality, and identification of other natural resources that might affect development of the project area. This ECS provides information on existing site conditions and resources, as well as current regulatory requirements related to those resources. ERO assumes the landowner or project proponent is responsible for obtaining all federal, state, and local permits for construction of the project. Section 3.4.1 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code requires an ECS for development sites that contain, or are located within 500 feet of, an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feature of the City of Fort Collins Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map or that are discovered during site evaluations associated with the development review process. Several natural habitat features were previously mapped or were encountered within 500 feet of the project area, including aquatic and wetland habitats (City of Fort Collins 2020). As required under Article 3, this ECS describes the following: (a) the wildlife use of the area showing the species of wildlife using the area, the times or seasons that the area is used by those species, and the “value” (meaning feeding, watering, cover, nesting, roosting, and perching) that the area provides for such wildlife species; (b) the boundary of wetlands in the area and a description of the ecological functions and characteristics provided by those wetlands; (c) any prominent views from or across the site; (d) the pattern, species, and location of any significant native trees and other native site vegetation; (e) the pattern, species, and location of all nonnative trees and vegetation that contribute to the site’s ecological, shade, canopy, aesthetic, and cooling value; (f) the bank, shoreline, and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water on the site; (g) areas inhabited by or frequently used by Sensitive and Specially Valued Species; (h) special habitat features; Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 2 ERO Resources Corporation (i) wildlife movement corridors; (j) the general ecological functions provided by the site and its features; (k) any issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological character of the area; and (l) any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of the development project on natural habitats and features. Project Area Location The project area is in Section 13, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1). The UTM coordinates of the approximate center of the project area are 494049mE, 4482426mN of NAD 83 Zone 13N. The longitude/latitude of the project area is 105.070224°W/40.492514°N. The elevation of the project area is approximately 5,000 feet above sea level. Photos are included in Appendix A, and photo points are shown on Figure 2. Project Area Description The project area is generally southeast of the intersection of South College Avenue and East Trilby Road in Fort Collins, Colorado (Figure 1). The project area is generally bounded by residential development on all sides (Figure 2). Additionally, the majority of the project area occurs in depression compared to the surrounding area. The majority of the project area consists of disturbed uplands, which was historically used for horse grazing and is currently disturbed as a result of active prairie dog colonies. Due to the active prairie dog colonies, vegetative cover is low in the majority of the project area and consists primarily of a mixture of nonnative upland species. Dominant species in the uplands include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), kochia (Bassia scoparia), and redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) (Photos 1, 2, and 3). A large wetland (Wetland 1) transects the project area and appears to be supported by runoff from surrounding development (Figure 2). The western portion of Wetland 1 consists of a narrow swale with sparse wetland vegetation that has been disturbed by grazing and nearby prairie dogs. Vegetation in the western portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by sporadic patches of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Baltic rush (Juncus articus), and curly dock (Rumex crispus) (Photo 4). The eastern portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia) (Photo 5). Other prevalent species in the eastern portion of Wetland 1 include hairy willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), a List A Colorado Noxious Weed, and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), a List B Colorado Noxious Weed. A second wetland (Wetland 2) occurs in the southeastern corner of the project area in what appears to be a manmade detention pond (Photo 6). A swale occurs along the eastern boundary of the project area and appears to periodically convey flows from Wetland 1 to the north of the project area (Photo 7). The project area lacks tree and shrub vegetation with the exception of several small Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) trees. A stand of plains cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides) occurs along an unnamed ditch approximately 200 feet southwest of the project area, and a potential red-tailed Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 3 ERO Resources Corporation hawk nest (based on nest size and location and the presence of an adult red-tailed hawk) occurs in one of the cottonwood trees (Photo 8). Project Area Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc. File: 10761 Figure 1.mxd (GS) March 25, 2020 ± Figure 1 Vicinity Map 6750 College Avenue Ecological Characterization Study Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2019 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 1,500750Feet LocationPath: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\ECS Figures\10761 Figure 1.mxdSection 13, T6N, R69W; 6th PM UTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 494049mE, 4482426mN Longitude 105.070224°W, Latitude 40.492514°N USGS Loveland, CO Quadrangle Larimer County, Colorado &&&&&&&&[b College AvenueTrilby Road Debra DriveKevin DriveRick Drive AutumnRidgeDriveWetland 1 (ModerateQuality, 4.216 ac) Wetland 2 (ModerateQuality, 0.011 ac) Unnamed Ditch (0.032 ac) Wetland 1 (LowQuality, 0.386 ac) P8 P3 P4 P2 P5 P6 P7 P1 Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc. File: 10761 Figure 2.mxd (GS) March 12, 2021 ± Figure 2 Existing Conditions 6750 College Avenue Ecological Characterization Study 0 350175FeetPath: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\ECS Figures\10761 Figure 2.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, July 2019 [b Potential Red-tailed Hawk Nest &Photo Point Flow Direction Ditch Swale Upland Vegetated Swale Active Prairie Dog Colony (24.015 ac in Project Area) Low-Quality Wetland (0.386 ac) Moderate-Quality Wetland (4.227 ac) Ordinary High Water Mark (0.032 ac) Project Area Boundary Low Quality Wetland 1: 0.386 Acre Moderate Quality Wetland 1: 4.216 Acres Moderate Quality Wetland 2: 0.011 Acre Wetland Total: 4.613 Acres Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 6 ERO Resources Corporation Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Background The Clean Water Act (CWA) protects the chemical, physical, and biological quality of waters of the U.S. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Regulatory Program administers and enforces Section 404 of the CWA. Under Section 404, a Corps permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and other waters of the U.S. (streams, ponds, and other waterbodies). On June 22, 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency and Corps Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” became effective in 49 states and in all U.S. territories. A preliminary injunction has been granted for Colorado. Until further notice, jurisdiction of wetlands and other potential waters of the U.S. in Colorado will be determined using 2008 Rapanos guidance. Under the Rapanos guidelines, the Corps considers traditionally navigable waters (TNWs), wetlands adjacent to a TNW, and tributaries to TNWs that are relatively permanent waters (RPWs) and their abutting wetlands jurisdictional waters. Other wetlands and waters that are not TNWs or RPWs will require a significant nexus evaluation to determine their jurisdiction. A significant nexus evaluation assesses the flow characteristics and functions of a tributary and its adjacent wetlands to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of downstream TNWs. Project Area Conditions Streams and Open Water On December 11, 2019, Hidde Snieder with ERO surveyed the project area for potential isolated wetlands, jurisdictional wetlands, and other waters of the U.S. (2019 site visit). Prior to the 2019 site visit, ERO reviewed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle topographic maps and aerial photography to identify mapped streams and areas of open water that could indicate wetlands or waters of the U.S. On January 10, 2020 ERO surveyed the remainder of the project area that was covered in snow during the 2019 site visit. ERO conducted the wetland delineation following the methods for routine on-site wetland determinations in areas of less than 5 acres as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and used methods in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0) (Corps 2010) to record data on vegetation, soils, and hydrology on routine determination forms (Appendix B). The Corps defines wetlands as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.2(c)). Wetland boundaries were determined by a visible change in vegetation community, soils, topographic changes, and other visible distinctions between wetlands and uplands. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 7 ERO Resources Corporation The wetland indicator status of plant species was identified using the National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2016), taxonomy was determined using Flora of Colorado (Ackerfield 2015) and Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope (Weber and Wittmann 2012), and nomenclature was determined using The PLANTS Database (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2019). Commonly occurring plant species in the project area, including the wetland indicator status, are listed in Appendix B. If present, hydric soils were identified using field observation for hydric soil indicators accepted by the Corps. Soil data were not always collected if hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology were present and did not appear altered (Environmental Laboratory 1987). In addition, soil data were not collected in conditions where there was a clear lack of hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation indicators. Where soil data were collected, a Munsell soil color chart was used to determine soil color. Intermittent, ephemeral, and perennial drainages with characteristics of a defined streambed, streambank, ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and other erosional features also were identified. The OHWM identifies the lateral jurisdictional limits of nonwetland waters of the U.S. Federal jurisdiction over nonwetland waters of the U.S. extends to the OHWM, defined in 33 CFR 328.3 as “the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The Corps defines “stream bed” as “the substrate of the stream channel between the OHWMs. The substrate may be bedrock or inorganic particles that range in size from clay to boulders.” The boundaries of identified wetlands and other characteristics of potential waters of the U.S. were mapped using a Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Data were differentially corrected using the CompassCom base station. All differential correction was completed using Trimble Pathfinder Office 5.9 software. GPS data were incorporated using ESRI® ArcGIS Desktop software. Additionally, where appropriate, wetlands were drawn on georectified aerials and then digitized. Wetland Classification Delineated wetlands were classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) combined with a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach (Brinson 1993). The HGM approach assesses the chemical, physical, and biological functions of wetlands based on its geomorphic setting, water source, and hydrodynamics. HGM classes found in Colorado are mineral soil flats, organic soil flats, riverine, lacustrine fringe, slope, and depressional. The Cowardin classification uses a hierarchical structure of systems, subsystems, and classes to classify both wetlands and deepwater habitats. Wetlands with persistent or nonpersistent vegetation are classified in the Cowardin system as palustrine, which typically includes wetlands referred to as marshes, fens, wet meadows, and sloughs. The palustrine system also includes small, shallow, permanent, or intermittent water bodies such as ponds. Palustrine wetlands may be situated shoreward of lakes and river channels, on river floodplains, in isolated catchments, or on slopes (Cowardin et al. 1979). Under the palustrine system, wetlands are classified as emergent (erect, rooted, herbaceous, and usually perennial Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 8 ERO Resources Corporation hydrophytes that remain standing until at least the next growing season); scrub-shrub (woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall); or forested (woody vegetation 20 feet or taller). In wetlands where more than one wetland type occurs, the wetland type of the largest area is used. For example, an area that is predominantly palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands but also contains a small amount of palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetlands would be categorized as PEM wetlands. Because of the limited occurrence of the smaller sized wetland types within the larger wetland polygons, these areas were not separated out within the delineated polygons. Description of Wetlands and Other Waters ERO assessed the project area for wetlands and other waters as described below. Data were collected from various locations in the project area to document the characteristics of uplands and wetlands, and the transition areas between them. All data points and routine wetland determination forms are in Appendix B. The following sections contain information on potential surface water connections of wetlands and other waters within the project area. Table 1 provides a summary of the mapped areas, including Cowardin classification, for each wetland. Approximately 0.032 acre of ordinary high water mark associated with the unnamed ditch and 4.613 acres of wetlands occur within the project area (Figure 2). Table 1. Wetland area and Cowardin classification. Water/Wetland ID Longitude Latitude Feature Size (acre) Cowardin Classification Wetland 1 105.066801 40.492361 4.602 PEM Wetland 2 105.066399 40.491418 0.011 PEM Total Wetlands 4.613 Unnamed Ditch 105.076114 40.491722 0.03 N/A Wetlands During the 2019 site visit, ERO mapped 4.613 acres of wetlands within the project area (Table 1; Figure 2). Wetlands occur throughout the center of the project area (Wetland 1) and within a manmade detention pond in the southeastern corner of the project area (Wetland 2; Figure 2). ERO collected data in 11 locations (data points (DP)1 through DP11) within the project area to determine if hydrophytic vegetation, hydrophytic soil, or wetland hydrology was present. Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is a depressional palustrine emergent wetland that transects the project area from west to east. Wetland 1 appears to directly receive runoff from the surrounding residential development to the north and west. Wetland 1 connects to a swale along the eastern border of the project area (Figure 2). The western portion of Wetland 1 consists of a narrow swale with sparse wetland vegetation that has been disturbed by grazing and nearby prairie dogs. Vegetation in the western portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by sporadic patches of saltgrass, Baltic rush, and curly dock. Due to the low vegetative cover proximity to disturbed uplands, these are considered low-quality wetlands. The eastern portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by broadleaf cattail (Photo 5). Other prevalent species in the eastern portion of Wetland 1 include hairy willowherb, a List A Colorado Noxious Weed, and Canada thistle, a List B Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 9 ERO Resources Corporation Colorado Noxious Weed. Although vegetative cover is high in the eastern portion of Wetland 1 due to low diversity and prevalence of noxious weeds, this portion of Wetland 1 is considered moderate quality. ERO conducted a FACWet assessment of Wetland 1 discussed in the Wetland Functional Assessment section below. Wetland 2 Wetland 2 is a palustrine emergent wetland that occurs within a manmade detention pond in the southeastern corner of the project area. Wetland 2 receives water from residential development to the east and south, and water from Wetland 2 flows into a storm drain. Wetland 2 is considered moderate quality due to low vegetative diversity and the high number of cattails. Streams and Open Water The project area is within Hydrologic Unit 101900071002. The wetlands in the project area are shown as a marsh and pond on the USGS Loveland, Colorado topographic quadrangle. The Unnamed Ditch is not shown on the USGS Loveland, Colorado topographic quadrangle or the National Hydrography Dataset (Figure 1). Within the project area, the Unnamed Ditch is a 2- to 4-foot-wide constructed ditch. The Unnamed Ditch originates east of South College Avenue and splits into two laterals south of the project area. Both laterals south of the project area appear to dissipate in the uplands near Robert Benson Lake. No other areas of open water were observed in the project area during the 2019 site visit. Wetland Functional Assessment 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 physical, chemical, 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 functions of wetlands within the project area were evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands (FACWet) – Version 3.0 method developed by the Colorado Department of Transportation (Johnson et al. 2013). The FACWet method is a rapid assessment that analyzes the physical and biological form and function of a wetland relative to its native state, or that of a reference standard wetland of the same type. The area of interest (AOI) for the FACWet is defined as “the spatial envelope which encompasses the entire area potentially impacted (directly or indirectly) by a project’s proposed activities” (Johnson et al. 2013). For this project, the AOI was determined by wetlands and waters that would be directly impact. The assessment areas are the total area of delineated wetlands and waters of the U.S. within the AOI that could be impacted directly or indirectly. The FACWet method is based on assessing how outside stressors impact eight fundamental variables, and then modeling the resultant effects on natural functions and overall conditions of the assessment site. The eight variables are habitat connectivity, contributing area, water source, water distribution, water outflow, chemical environment, geomorphology, and vegetation structure and complexity. The Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 10 ERO Resources Corporation functions of the wetland are graded on a scale of 1.00 (A – Reference Standard) to below 0.60 (F – Nonfunctioning), similar to an academic grading scale. The FACWet evaluation yields a cumulative Functional Capacity Index (FCI) score for the assessment area, which relates the degree of FACWet state variable impairment with the overall capacity of the assessment area to perform seven key functions relative to its reference standard. • Support of characteristic wildlife habitat • Support of characteristic fish/aquatic habitat • Flood attenuation • Short- and long-term water storage • Nutrient/toxicant removal • Sediment retention/shoreline stabilization • Production export and food chain support The reference standard for wetlands in the project area is wetlands in the same HGM class with no human influence. Because the assessment identifies stressors affecting the wetland functions of a site, the information may be used to develop more effective compensatory wetland mitigation plans. Following is a brief summary of the results of the FACWet assessment within the assessment area. On November 20, 2020, Hidde Snieder with ERO identified ecological stressors in the wetlands and evaluated their effects on the eight FACWet site variables. The functional variable scores for the assessment areas in the survey area are provided in Table 1 and the FCI scores and composite scores are provided in Table 1. Data collected during the FACWet assessments are documented on the datasheets and figures in Appendix D. Following is a brief summary of the results of the FACWet assessment within each of the assessment areas. Table 2. Variable scores for FACWet method. Variable 6750 College Ave Wetlands Habitat Connectivity 0.63 Contributing Area 0.77 Water Source 0.63 Water Distribution 0.65 Water Outflow 0.58 Chemical Environment 0.64 Geomorphology 0.72 Vegetation Structure and Complexity 0.68 *1.0 to 0.9 – Reference Standard; <0.9 to 0.8 – Highly Functioning; <0.8 to 0.7 – Functioning; <0.7 to 0.6 – Functioning Impaired; <0.6 – Nonfunctioning. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 11 ERO Resources Corporation Table 3. Functional capacity index scores. Function 6750 College Ave Wetlands Support of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat 0.69 Support of Characteristic Fish/Aquatic Habitat 0.63 Flood Attenuation 0.65 Short- and Long-Term Water Storage 0.62 Nutrient/Toxicant Removal 0.70 Sediment Retention/Shoreline Stabilization 0.68 Production Export/Food Chain Support 0.64 Composite Functional Capacity Indices (FCI) Score 0.66 *1.0 to 0.9 – Reference Standard; <0.9 to 0.8 – Highly Functioning; <0.8 to 0.7 – Functioning; <0.7 to 0.6 – Functioning Impaired; <0.6 – Nonfunctioning. Overall, the wetlands are functioning below a reference standard wetland and are rated as functioning impaired with a score of 0.66 (Table 3). The surrounding residential properties and urban development have affected the existing wetlands in the AOI and act as stressors on its habitat connectivity. In addition, the surrounding development has impacted water quality and caused an increase in stormwater runoff resulting in increased sedimentation and increased nutrient and toxic materials from urban runoff across the majority of the wetlands in the AOI. The wetlands also have several other stressors, including excess herbivory from surrounding prairie dog colonies, historical grazing a monoculture of aggressive vegetation and several List A, List B and C Noxious weeds. The wetland areas scored low due to the high degree of land use changes, changes to the geomorphology of the wetland by a historical berm in the AOI, and changes to the vegetation structure and complexity. Impacts on Streams, Open Water, and Wetlands On January 28, 2020, the Corps determined that Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and the Unnamed Ditch are not considered waters of the U.S. and are not jurisdictional (Appendix E). Because Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and the Unnamed Ditch are not waters of U.S., a Section 404 permit is not required for any work within those features. The proposed project would result in impacts on a total of 1.506 acre of wetlands associated with Wetland 1 specifically 0.386 acre of low-quality wetlands and 1.12 acres of moderate- quality wetlands (Figure 3). Wetland Mitigation Plan Objectives The proposed project would impact 1.506 acre of emergent wetlands. The proposed compensatory mitigation for permanent wetland impacts would be at a 1:1 ratio, on-site, and in-kind and would result in the creation of at least 1.506 acre of wetlands (Figure 4). The mitigation plan would also incorporate native seeding in upland and riparian areas adjacent to the proposed wetland mitigation area, as well as native tree and shrub plantings. In addition to the proposed wetland mitigation, Sun Communities is proposing to create 3.21 acre of natural area buffer around the proposed wetland mitigation as described in the Natural Habitat and Buffer Mitigation below. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 12 ERO Resources Corporation Wetland Creation Approximately 1.506 acre of wetlands would be created along the undisturbed portions of Wetland 1 in the proposed detention pond to provide wetland mitigation (Figure 4). The wetland mitigation areas would occur directly adjacent to the undisturbed wetlands and would occur entirely within the proposed detention pond. The proposed wetland mitigation areas would be graded to occur at the same elevation or slightly below the adjacent wetlands to provide adequate hydrology. Additionally, Sun Communities anticipates that as a result of the development there would be increased runoff which would support the proposed wetland mitigation area. The created wetlands would be seeded with a wetland seed mix (Table 4). The undisturbed wetlands and wetland mitigation area would be enhanced by increasing biodiversity by seeding a native wetland seed mix, increasing bio diversity whereas currently wetlands in Wetland 1 consist of a monoculture of cattails the proposed wetland mitigation area would have a mixture of graminoid and forb dominated wetlands, decreasing non-native and noxious weed cover by seeding with native species and implementing noxious weed control. In addition, once hydrological conditions permit the wetland area and adjacent natural habitat buffer area would be planted a mixture of riparian trees and shrubs would be installed within and adjacent to the wetland mitigation area and within the natural habitat buffer area. Table 4. Wetland seed mix – clay and alkali soils Common Name Scientific Name Growth Season Growth Form % Mix Wetland Indicator* Lb/ac (PLS1 Grasses and Herbaceous Species Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides Warm Bunch 10 FAC 0.4 Inland saltgrass Distichlis spicata Warm Sod 10 FACW 1.2 Nuttall’s alkaligrass Puccinellia nuttalliana Cool Bunch 10 OBL 0.2 Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata Warm Sod 10 FACW 3.0 Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus spp. Cool Bunch 10 FACU 3.8 Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Cool Sod 10 FACU 5.5 Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata Cool Sod 10 OBL 3.3 Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus 10 OBL 1.6 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 10 OBL 0.1 Creeping spikerush Eleocharis palustris 10 OBL 1.0 TOTAL PLS POUNDS/ACRE 20.1 *PLS = Pure Live Seed—if broadcast seeding, double the rate; lb/ac = pounds per acre. Note: Wildflowers species not recommended for clay or alkali soils. Native Plant Seeding In addition to seeding the proposed wetland mitigation area with the native wetland seed mix (Table 4), Sun Communities is proposing to seed the 3.21 acre of natural area buffer with a native riparian seed mix (Table 5) and a native upland seed mix (Table 6). Before placing the seed mix, the soils would be ripped and loosened to a minimum depth of 8 inches, and all rocks greater than 3 inches, debris, and large roots would be removed. Riparian seed mix would be drilled or broadcast seeded along the graded side slopes of the detention pond and covered with erosion-control fabric consisting of Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 13 ERO Resources Corporation biodegradable webbing on steeper slopes where needed. Coir mats would be installed along the toe of slope using wood stakes. The riparian area seed mix is a mix of native grass and wildflower species adapted to wet conditions and occasional flood events. The upland seed mix would be installed on gentler slopes that are not prone to flooding and would consists of species adapted to arid environments. In addition to the native plant seeding in the natural area buffer and the proposed wetland mitigation area, Sun Communities is proposing to plant 137 native riparian trees and 729 shrubs along within the natural area buffer and the proposed wetland mitigation area (Table 7). Table 5. Riparian seed mix – loamy to clay soils. Common Name Scientific Name Growth Season Growth Form % Mix Lb/ac (PLS1) Grasses Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis Warm Sod 20 1.5 Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus Warm Bunch 20 0.2 Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Warm Sod/Bunch 20 3.2 Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula Warm Sod 15 4.7 Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Cool Sod 10 5.5 Green needlegrass Nasella viridula Cool Bunch 10 3.3 Wildflowers Smooth aster Aster laevis 1 0.1 Louisiana sage Artemisia ludovisciana 1 0.1 Showy goldeneye Heliomeris multiflora (aka Viguiera) 1 0.1 Blanket flower Gaillardia aristata 1 0.5 Prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera 1 0.1 TOTAL POUNDS PLS/ACRE 100 19.3 *PLS = Pure Live Seed—if broadcast seeding, double the rate; lb/ac = pounds per acre. Table 6. Upland area seed mix – loamy to clay soils. Common Name Scientific Name Growth Season Growth Form % Mix Lb/ac (PLS1) Grasses Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis Warm Sod 25 1.8 Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus Warm Bunch 20 0.2 Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula Warm Sod 20 6.3 Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Cool Sod 15 8.2 Buffalo Grass Bouteloua dactyloides Warm Sod 10 10.7 Inland saltgras Disthichlis spicata Warm Sod 5 0.6 Wildflowers Pasture sage Artemisia frigida 1 0.01 Blanket flower Gaillardia artistata 1 0.05 Prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera 1 0.1 Purple prairieclover Dalea (Petalostemum) purpurea 1 0.3 Blue flax Linum lewisii 1 0.4 TOTAL POUNDS PLS/ACRE 100 29.11 Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 14 ERO Resources Corporation *PLS = Pure Live Seed—if broadcast seeding, double the rate; lb/ac = pounds per acre. Table 7. Natural area buffer riparian plantings. Scientific Name Common Name Quantity Size Trees Celtis reticulata Netleaf hackberry 38 1” caliper Populus deltoides Plains cottonwood 28 1” caliper Salix amygdaloides Peachleaf willow 71 1” caliper Total trees 137 Shrubs Prunus virginiana Chokecherry 225 15-gallon Salix exigua Sandbar willow 164 5-gallon Symphoricarpos albus Common snowberry 340 5-gallon Total shrubs 729 Maintenance Plan Sun Communities would maintain the wetland mitigation and natural buffer area until the mitigation success criteria have been met as determined by the City of Fort Collins. Sun Communities would review the wetland mitigation site and natural buffer area at least annually during the growing season to determine and report on the status and progress of the wetland mitigation site and natural buffer area and determine any needed remedial actions. State-listed noxious weeds would be controlled, and reseeding and irrigation would occur as needed to establish self-sustaining desirable vegetation. Any maintenance measures implemented would be reported to the City of Fort Collins in the annual monitoring report. Performance Standards Wetland mitigation would be considered successful and self-sustaining when the following conditions have been met; • Native seed area will be considered established when seventy percent vegetative cover is reached with less than 10 percent of cover consisting of noxious weeds, no bare sports larger than one foot square, and/or until deemed established by the City of Fort Collins planning services and erosion control. These mitigation success criteria would allow the City of Fort Collins to objectively evaluate whether the wetland mitigation and natural buffer area is developing as proposed and will provide the acreage and function intended. Annual monitoring and reporting on the progress of meeting the success criteria and any remedial measures taken would allow the Sun Communities and the City of Fort Collins to assess the expected stages of aquatic resource development, identify potential problems, and develop appropriate adaptive management. Monitoring Requirements The annual monitoring report would have the following information: • Project name and address of where the project is located Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 15 ERO Resources Corporation • A discussion of successes, failures, and problems • A discussion of hydrology ensuring success of plantings • Percentage of ground surface area that is vegetated, percentage of the vegetated area that contains wetland species, and a list of prevalent plant species • Maps and/or drawings as needed for illustration • Photographs of the mitigation site (to be taken from the same location each year and submitted with each report) Long-Term Management Plan Sun Communities agrees that once the wetland mitigation and natural buffer area have been constructed and planted, proper precautions would be taken to prevent domestic animals and human activity from adversely affecting them, and there would be no mowing or other detrimental effects on the mitigation areas. The mitigation plan has been designed to be, to the maximum extent practicable, self-sustaining once the mitigation success standards have been achieved. Sun Communities would be the party responsible for all long-term management of the compensatory mitigation project. including project implementation, long-term management and maintenance, and any required remedial measures. Adaptive Management Plan Sun Communities proposes that if during the first 2 years after the initial implementation of mitigation, the site conditions indicate that the success criteria are not likely to be achieved, Sun Communities agrees to undertake remedial actions after consultation with the City of Fort Collins. Sun Communities believes this is the most effective process for adaptive management and ensures that any needed corrections in the mitigation project are coordinated with the City of Fort Collins and then implemented by the Sun Communities. Noxious Weed Management Plan Sun Communities proposes to implement a noxious weed management plan and hire a licensed pesticide applicator prior, during, and after construction to control state listed noxious weeds in the project area. Plant species to be considered as noxious weeds and controlled and/or eradicated at this project site are those listed as such by Larimer County and the State of Colorado and include species on Lists A, B, and C (CDOA 2021). Below is a list of prevalent listed noxious weed species in the project area. List A Species • Hairy willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum) – Found intermixed with the cattails in Wetland 1 in the project area. This species is very aggressively and has been known to out compete cattails on occasion. Treating this species should be the highest priority of the noxious weed management plan to prevent the spread of this species into the watershed. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 16 ERO Resources Corporation List B Species • Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) – Found throughout Wetland 1 in the project area, and the cover of the population ranges from 5 to 20 percent in areas. • Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) – Found intermittently throughout the active prairie dog colonies, and the cover of the population ranges from 2 to 5 percent in areas. List C Species four list C species – cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and red stem filaree – were found scattered throughout the uplands in the project area during the 2020 site visit. Natural Area Buffer and Buffer Mitigation The areas surrounding Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 consist of disturbed uplands, which was historically used for horse grazing and is currently disturbed as a result of active prairie dog colonies. Due to the active prairie dog colonies, vegetative cover is low in the areas surrounding Wetlands 1 and 2 and consists primarily of a mixture of nonnative upland species. Dominant species in the uplands adjacent to Wetlands 1 and 2 include smooth brome, cheatgrass, prickly lettuce, sweetclover, Canada thistle, kochia, and redstem filaree. Additionally, the majority of the area surrounding Wetlands 1 and 2 lack riparian vegetation and where riparian vegetation is present it consists of scattered Siberian elm trees, an invasive species. Based on discussions with the City of Fort Collins, the natural area buffer mitigation would be based on a buffer extending 100 feet from the boundaries of the undisturbed wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas up until the property boundaries. Based on that requirement ERO determined that 2.785 acre of natural buffer area would need to be created to the City of Fort Collins requirements (Figure 3). Sun Communities is proposing to create 3.21 acre of natural buffer area, a larger amount of natural area than required by the City of Fort Collins. The proposed natural area buffer would occur adjacent to the undisturbed portions of Wetland 1 and along the proposed wetland mitigation areas along Wetland 1. The proposed natural area buffer would be seeded with a variety of native wetland, riparian, and upland seed mixes (Table 4 through Table 6) and mixture of trees and shrubs (Table 7). The proposed natural area buffer would provide higher ecological functions than the existing upland areas along Wetland 1 currently provide. The proposed wetland, riparian, and upland native seed mixes would increase species diversity while the noxious weed management plan would reduce noxious weed cover. In addition, the proposed tree and shrub plantings would provide structural diversity that is currently lacking from the site providing habitat for a variety of small mammals and birds. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species During the 2019 and 2020 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 Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 17 ERO Resources Corporation habitat require consultation with the Service under Section 7 or 10 of the ESA. The Service lists several threatened and endangered species with potential habitat in Larimer County, or that would be potentially affected by projects in Larimer County (Table 8). Table 8. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in the project area or potentially affected by projects in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Habitat Present or Potential to Affect? Mammals Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes E Prairie and grassland ranging from the midwestern to western U.S. No, within block clearance zone Canada lynx Lynx Canadensis T Moist boreal forests that have cold, snowy winters No North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus PT Cold conditions with deep persistent snow cover No Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Preble’s) Zapus hudsonius preblei T Shrub riparian/wet meadows No Birds Interior least tern** Sterna antillarum athalassos E Sandy/pebble beaches on lakes, reservoirs, and rivers Potential to affect due to anticipated depletions Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis T Closed-canopy forest in steep canyons No habitat Piping plover** Charadrius melodus T Sandy lakeshore beaches and river sandbars Potential to affect due to anticipated depletions Whooping crane** Grus americana E Mudflats around reservoirs and in agricultural areas Potential to affect due to anticipated depletions Insects Arapahoe snowfly Arsapria Arapahoe C Cold, clean, well-oxygenated streams and rivers; found in only two tributaries (Elkhorn Creek and Young Gulch) of the Poudre River in Colorado No Fish Greenback cutthroat trout** Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias T Cold, clear, gravel headwater streams and mountain lakes No habitat Pallid sturgeon** Scaphirhynchus albus E Large, turbid, free-flowing rivers with a strong current and gravel or sandy substrate Potential to affect due to anticipated depletions Plants North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula E Known only from exposures of the Coalmont Formation at elevations from 7,940 to 8,260 feet No Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (ULTO) Spiranthes diluvialis T Moist to wet alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial streams, and around springs and lakes below 7,800 feet in elevation Potential habitat may be present *T = Federally Threatened Species; E = Federally Endangered Species; PT = Proposed Threatened. **Water depletions in the South Platte River may affect the species and/or critical habitat in downstream reaches in other counties or states. Source: Service 2021. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 18 ERO Resources Corporation Possible Effects ERO previously submitted a habitat assessment letter to the Service. On February 3, 2020 the Service made a no concerns determination for the proposed project due to a lack of suitable habitat for listed species (Appendix D). No further action is required for federally threatened and endangered species. [b College AvenueTrilby Road Debra DriveKevin DriveRick Drive AutumnRidgeDriveUnnamed Ditch (0.032 ac,Impact 0.032 ac) Wetland 1 (ModerateQuality, 4.216 ac,Impact 1.120 ac) Wetland 2 (ModerateQuality, 0.011 ac,No Impact) Wetland 1 (LowQuality, 0.386 ac,Impact 0.386 ac) Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc. File: 10761 Figure 3.mxd (GS) March 12, 2021 ± Figure 3 Proposed Impacts 6750 College Avenue Ecological Characterization Study 0 350175FeetPath: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\ECS Figures\10761 Figure 3.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, July 2019 [b Potential Red-tailed Hawk Nest Flow Direction Ditch Swale Upland Vegetated Swale Active Prairie Dog Colony Low-Quality Wetland (0.386 ac) Moderate-Quality Wetland (4.227 ac) Ordinary High Water Mark (0.032 ac) Project Area Boundary Permanent Prairie Dog Colony Impact (24.015 ac) Permanent Ordinary High Water Mark Impact (0.032 ac) Permanent Low-Quality Wetland Impact (0.386 ac) Permanent Moderate-Quality Wetland Impact (1.120 ac) Wetland Mitigation Area (1.506 ac) Wetland Mitigation Area and Undisturbed Wetland 1 Buffer (2.785 ac) Low Quality Impact Wetland 1: 0.386 Acre Moderate Quality Impact Wetland 1: 1.120 Acres Wetland Impact Total: 1.506 Acres College AvenueTrilby Road Debra DriveKevin DriveRick Drive AutumnRidgeDrivePrepared for: Sun Communities, Inc. File: 10761 Figure 4.mxd (GS) March 16, 2021 ± Figure 4 Proposed Natural Area Wetland Mitigation 6750 College Avenue Ecological Characterization Study 0 350175FeetPath: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\ECS Figures\10761 Figure 4.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, July 2019 Wetland Mitigation Area (1.506 ac) Natural Area Buffer (3.21 ac) Project Area Boundary Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 21 ERO Resources Corporation Other Species of Concern Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Species Background The black-tailed prairie dog is a Colorado species of special concern (Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) 2018). Black-tailed prairie dogs are important components of the short and mesic grasslands systems. Threats to this species include habitat loss and degradation, habitat fragmentation, disease (sylvatic plague), and lethal control activities. Typically, areas occupied by prairie dogs have greater cover and abundance of perennial grasses and annual forbs compared with nonoccupied sites (Whicker and Detling 1988; Witmer et al. 2002). Black-tailed prairie dogs are commonly considered a “keystone” species because their activities (burrowing and intense grazing) provide food and shelter for many other grassland species and have a large effect on community structure and ecosystem function (Power et al. 1996). Prairie dogs can contribute to overall landscape heterogeneity, affect nutrient cycling, and provide nest sites and shelter for wildlife (Whicker and Detling 1988). Species such as black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, prairie rattlesnake, and mountain plover are closely linked to prairie dog burrow systems for food and/or cover. Prairie dogs also provide an important prey resource for numerous predators including American badger, coyote, red fox, bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, and other raptors. Prairie dogs also can denude the surface by clipping aboveground vegetation and contributing to exposed bare ground by digging up roots (Kuford 1958). Potential Habitat and Possible Effects During the 2020 site visit, ERO mapped 24.015 acres of active black-tailed prairie dog colonies within the project area. CPW recommends attempting to remove or exterminate prairie dogs prior to bulldozing an active prairie dog town for humane reasons. CPW requires permits to move prairie dogs. Private companies can be hired to relocate prairie dogs, although relocation sites are difficult to secure. If extermination of prairie dogs is the only option, several independent companies provide treatments for prairie dog control. Fort Collins has an ordinance protecting prairie dog colonies that are 1 acre or larger. Larimer County follows CPW guidelines and, if a prairie dog colony or other protected species is found, a mitigation plan is required. Recommendations If prairie dog removal becomes necessary, CPW recommends removing them in a humane manner before any earthwork or construction takes place. Sun Communities is proposing to use the City of Fort Collins Fee-In-Lieu program to mitigate for the impact on 24.015 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. To prevent future human-wildlife conflict with prairie dogs on portions of the project area that would border active prairie dog colonies to the southeast, Sun Communities is proposing to install a combination of fencing and tall grasses to prevent dispersal into the development. Prior to any work that would disturb a colony between March 15 and October 31, colonies should be surveyed for burrowing owls. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 22 ERO Resources Corporation Western Burrowing Owl Species Background The western burrowing owl (burrowing owl) is a small migrant owl listed by the state of Colorado as a threatened species (CPW 2021) and is federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Primary threats to the burrowing owl include habitat loss and fragmentation, anthropogenic sources of mortality (e.g., vehicular collisions), and loss of wintering grounds, largely in Mexico. In general, burrowing owls are found in grasslands with vegetation less than 4 inches high and a relatively large proportion of bare ground. In Colorado, burrowing owls are usually associated with black-tailed prairie dog colonies (Kingery 1998; Andrews and Righter 1992). More than 70 percent of sightings reported in the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas were in prairie dog colonies (Kingery 1998). Burrowing owls usually arrive on their breeding grounds about mid-March to early April and remain until September. Burrowing owls are present in Colorado from March 15 through October 31, with breeding from mid-April to early/mid-August (Andrews and Righter 1992; Kingery 1998). CPW suggests conducting burrowing owl clearance surveys in prairie dog towns that are subject to poisoning and/or construction projects during the period from March 15 through October 31 (Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) 2008). Potential Habitat and Possible Effects The potential prairie dog burrows in the project area can provide potential burrowing owl habitat. Inadvertent killing of burrowing owls could occur during prairie dog poisoning, construction, or earthmoving projects if owls are present in the project area. CPW has a recommended buffer of 150 feet surrounding active burrowing owl nests (CDOW 2008). Since prairie dog burrows may be present in the project area, burrowing owls could be directly affected by project activities. Recommendations CPW recommends conducting burrowing owl clearance surveys in prairie dog colonies that are subject to poisoning and/or construction projects from March 15 through October 31 (CDOW 2008). Construction occurring between November 1 and March 14 would not require clearance surveys. If burrowing owls are found within the construction footprint or within 150 feet of the construction footprint, individual nest burrows and a 150-foot buffer around the burrow should be left undisturbed until the owls have moved or migrated from the site, which can be determined through monitoring. Raptors and Migratory Birds Background Migratory birds, as well as their eggs and nests, are protected under the MBTA. While destruction of a nest by itself is not prohibited under the MBTA, nest destruction that results in the unpermitted take of migratory birds or their eggs is illegal (Service 2003). The regulatory definition of a take means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (50 CFR 10.12). Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 23 ERO Resources Corporation Under the MBTA, the Service may issue nest depredation permits, which allow a permittee to remove an active nest. The Service, however, issues few permits and only under specific circumstances, usually related to human health and safety. Obtaining a nest depredation permit is unlikely and involves a process that may take a significant amount of time. In addition, CPW has recommended buffers for nesting raptors, depending on the species (generally ⅓ or ¼ mile) (CDOW 2008). The best way to comply with the MBTA is to remove vegetation outside of the active breeding season, which typically falls between March and August, depending on the species. Public awareness of the MBTA has grown in recent years, and most MBTA enforcement actions are the result of a concerned member of the community reporting noncompliance. Potential Habitat and Possible Effects The breeding season for most birds in Colorado is March through August, with the exception of a few species that begin breeding in February, such as great horned owls. During the 2020 site visit, no active migratory bird nests, including raptor nests, were observed within the project area. A potential red- tailed hawk nest was observed in a cottonwood tree approximately 200 feet south of the project area (Figure 2). A red-tailed hawk was observed in a tree near the nest but was not observed using the nest during the 2020 site visit. The cattail wetlands in the eastern half of the project provide nesting habitat for species such as red-winged blackbirds. However, because the 2020 site visit occurred before the breeding season of red-winged blackbirds, no active nests were observed. Recommendations ERO recommends vegetation removal outside (typically September through February) of the breeding season. Both the Denver Field Office of the Service (2009) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (2011) have identified the primary nesting season for migratory birds in eastern Colorado as occurring between April 1 and mid to late August. However, a few species, such as bald eagles, great horned owls, and red-tailed hawks, can nest as early as December (eagles) or late February (owls and red-tailed hawks). Because of variability in the breeding seasons of various bird species, ERO recommends, at a minimum, that a nest survey be conducted within one week prior to construction to determine if any active nests are present in the project area so they can be avoided. Additional nest surveys during the nesting season may also be warranted to identify active nesting species that may present additional development timing restrictions (e.g., eagles or red-tailed hawks). It is likely that if the potential red-tailed hawk nest becomes active, the hawks would likely be habituated to human disturbance due to active construction for a different development project less than 150 feet from the nest to the west. Nest removal (not including bald eagle nests) may occur during the nonbreeding season to discourage future nesting and avoid violations of the MBTA. No permit or approval is necessary for removing nests during the nonbreeding season; however, nests must be destroyed and may not be collected under MBTA regulations. If the construction schedule does not allow vegetation removal outside of the breeding season, a nest survey should be conducted within one week prior to vegetation removal to Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 24 ERO Resources Corporation determine if the nest is active and by which species. If active nests are found, any work that would destroy the nests could not be conducted until the birds have vacated the nests. Other Wildlife The project area occurs within mule deer, white-tailed deer, mountain lion, and black bear overall range (CPW 2018). No other sensitive species occur within the project area that would be significantly adversely affected by the proposed project and the project area does not serve as a wildlife movement corridor as it is completely surrounded by residential development. The prairie dog colonies within the project area provide prey for raptors and other wildlife, and it is likely raptors forage in these areas. The prairie dog colonies also likely provide burrows for cottontail rabbits, bull and rattlesnakes and other ground dwelling wildlife. As with any human development, wildlife species sensitive to human disturbance are likely to decline in abundance or abandon the area, while other wildlife species adapted to development are likely to increase in abundance. Species likely to decline include prairie dogs, some raptors, and possibly coyotes. Species likely to increase include red fox, raccoon, and house mouse. Overall, surrounding and continuing development contributes to a decline in the number and diversity of wildlife species nearby and to a change in species composition to favor species that adapt better to human disturbance. Views The area surrounding the project consists entirely of residential development. Due to the project area’s location in a large depression, portions of the Front Range are only visible in the eastern half of the project area. References Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. 1st edition. Botanical Research Institute of Texas. Fort Worth, TX. Andrews, R.A. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, CO. Brinson, M.M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification of wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. City of Fort Collins. 2018. City of Fort Collins – GIS Open Data Natural Habitat. https://data- fcgov.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/natural-habitat?geometry=-105.03%2C40.474%2C- 104.949%2C40.485. Last accessed March 15, 2021. 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 March 15, 2021. Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDOA). 2021. Noxious Weeds. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/noxiousweeds. Last accessed March 12, 2021. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 25 ERO Resources Corporation Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2008. Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado Raptor Nests. February. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2018. CPW Wildlife Shapefile Download. From: Species Activity Data Collection. Redlands, CA: ESRI. http://www.arcgis.com/home/group.html?owner=rsacco&title=Colorado%20Parks%20and%20Wildlif e%20-%20Species%20Activity%20Data. Last accessed March 15, 2021. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2021. Colorado listing of endangered, threatened and wildlife species of special concern. http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList/Pages/ListO fThreatenedAndEndangeredSpecies.aspx. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services Program. No. FWS/OBS-79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report 7- 87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Johnson, B., M. Beardsley, and J. Doran. 2013. The Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands (FACWet) Method – Version 3.0 User Manual. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation. April. Kingery, H.E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife. Kuford, C.C. 1958. Prairie dogs, Whitefaces, and Blue Grama. Wildlife Monograph 1-78. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30:1-17. Published April 28, 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Last accessed March 15, 2021. Power, M. E., D. Tilman, J. A. Estes B. A. Menge, W. J. Bond, L. S. Mills, G. Daily, J. C. Castilla, J. Lubchenco, and R. T. Paine. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. BioScience 466:9-20. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. The PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. Last accessed March 15, 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2003. Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum. April 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2009. Personal communication between Pete Plage (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and ERO Resources Corporation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2020. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC). https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Last accessed March 25, 2020. Weber, W.A. and R.C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope. 4th edition. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 26 ERO Resources Corporation Whicker, A.D. and J.K. Detling. 1988. Ecological consequences of prairie dog disturbances. BioScience 38:778-785. Witmer, G.W., K.C. VerCauteren, K.M. Manci, and D.M. Dees. 2002. Urban-suburban prairie dog management opportunities and challenges. Proceedings of 19th Vertebrate Pest Conference 19:439- 444. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix A Photo Log P«ÊãÊ LÊ¦ 6750 CÊ½½¦ AòÄç PÙÊ¹ã EÊ½Ê¦®½ C«ÙãÙ®þã®ÊÄ Sãçù MÙ« 16, 2020 Photo 1 - Overview of the disturbed uplands in the eastern porƟ on of the project area. View is to the west. Photo 2 - Overview of acƟ ve prairie dog colonies in the western porƟ on of the project area. View is to the southwest. P«ÊãÊ LÊ¦ 6750 CÊ½½¦ AòÄç PÙÊ¹ã EÊ½Ê¦®½ C«ÙãÙ®þã®ÊÄ Sãçù MÙ« 16, 2020 Photo 3 - Overview of the uplands in the project area. View is to the east. Photo 4 - Overview of wetlands in the western porƟ on of Wetland 1. View is to the west. P«ÊãÊ LÊ¦ 6750 CÊ½½¦ AòÄç PÙÊ¹ã EÊ½Ê¦®½ C«ÙãÙ®þã®ÊÄ Sãçù MÙ« 16, 2020 Photo 5 - Overview of wetlands in the eastern porƟ on of Wetland 1. View is to the northeast. Photo 6 - Overview of wetlands in Wetland 2. View is to the east. P«ÊãÊ LÊ¦ 6750 CÊ½½¦ AòÄç PÙÊ¹ã EÊ½Ê¦®½ C«ÙãÙ®þã®ÊÄ Sãçù MÙ« 16, 2020 Photo 7 - Overview of the swale along the eastern border of the project area. View is to the northeast. Photo 8 - Overview of the coƩ onwood trees and potenƟ al red-tailed hawk nest outside the project area. View is to the southwest. Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix B Wetland Delineation Datasheets US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP1 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Swalw Concave 5 G 40.493361 105.065810 NAD 83 Cushman fine sandy loam NN N NN N Majority of swale was covered in snow during 2019 delineation 30' 1 2 15'05 30 90 5'5 20 Rumex crispus Lactuca serriola Cirsium arvense 50 10 20 5 85 Y N Y N UPL FAC FAC FACU 50 250 85 360 4.23 15 Bromus inermis US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP1 0-8 8-16 2.5Y 5/3 2.5Y 5/2 100 90 2.5Y 5/6 10 C M ClLo ClLo 0 Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit. Saturation at surface US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP2 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Depression concave 2 G 40.492595 105.065888 NAD 83 Water NN N NN N 30' 1 1 15'1 40 80 10 30 5'10 40 Cirsium arvense Phalaris arundinacea Rumex crispus 30 10 10 10 60 Y N N N FACW FACU FACW FAC 60 150 2.5 40 Epilobium hirsutum US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP2 0-12 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C Pl ClLo 0 Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP3 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Hillslope concave 5 G 40.492629 105.065884 NAD 83 water NN N NN N Hillslope adjacent to depression 30' 0 2 15'0 5' Cirsium arvense Asclepias speciosa 30 40 10 80 Y Y N UPL FACU FAC 20 Bromus inermis US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP3 0-16 10YR 3/2 100 ClLo Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP4 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Depression concave 2 G 40.492461 105.066178 NAD 83 Water NN N NN N 30' 1 1 15'1 70 70 10 30 5'10 40 Veronica anagallis-aquatica Cisium arvense Rumex crispus 60 10 10 10 90 Y N N N OBL OBL FACU FAC 90 140 1.56 10 Typha latifolia US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP4 0-2 2-16 10YR 3/2 10YR 2/2 100 20 Gley1 2.5/N 80 D M ClLo ClLo 6 0 Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP5 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Depression concave 2 G 40.491546 105.066657 NAD 83 Cushman fine sandy loam NN N NN N Wetlands within stormwater pond 30' 2 2 15'1 5' Distichlis spicata 70 30 100 Y Y OBL FACW 0 Typha latifolia US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP5 0-2 2-14 10YR 3/2 10YR 2/2 100 40 Gley 1 2.5/N 60 D M ClLo ClLo 4 Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP6 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Hillslope Concave 3 G 40.491645 105.066693 NAD 83 Water NN N NN N 30' 0 1 15'0 5' Cirsium arvense Distichlis spicata 40 15 10 65 Y N N UPL FACU FACW 35 Bromus inermis US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP6 0-16 2.5Y 3/2 100 ClLo Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP7 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Swale concave 2 G 40.493378 105.071505 NAD 83 Kim Loam NN N NN N Wetland vegetated swale 30' 2 2 15'1 5' Distichlis spicata Chenopodium album Echinochloa crus-galli 40 20 5 10 75 Y Y N N FACW FACW FACU FAC 25 Juncus arcticus US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP7 0-2 2-16 10YR3/2 10YR 3/2 100 95 7.5YR 5/8 5 C M ClLo ClLo 5 Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Dec 11 2019 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP8 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W hillslope concave 2 G 40.493340 105.071502 NAD 83 Kim Loam NN N NN N 30' 0 1 15'0 5' Verbena bracteata Pascopyrum smithii Chenopodium album Hordeum jubatum 50 10 5 5 70 Y N N N FACU FACU FACU FACW 30 US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP8 0-16 2.5Y 3/2 100 ClLo Partial snow cover during 2019 site visit US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Jan 10 2020 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP9 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Swale Concave 5 G 40.493625° -105.065811° NAD 83 Cushman fine sandy loam NN N NN N Upland vegetated swale 30' 0 2 15'0 5 5 Y FACUElaeagnus angustifolia 5' Cirsium arvense Lactuca serriola 50 5 10 65 Y N N UPL FACU FAC 35 Bromus inermis US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP9 0-10 10-16 10YR 4/3 10YR 4/2 98 7.5YR 4/6 2 C M ClLo ClLo US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Jan 10 2020 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP10 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Swale Concave 5 G 40.494135° -105.065819° NAD 83 Renohill clay loam NN N NN N Upland vegetated swale 30' 1 2 15'05 15 45 5'13 52 Cirsium arvense Bromus inermis Helianthus annuus 15 10 40 3 68 Y N Y N FAC FACU UPL FACU 40 200 68 297 4.38 32 Lactuca serriola US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP10 0-4 4-16 10YR 5/2 10YR 5/2 95 10YR5/4 5 C M ClLo ClLo US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado Jan 10 2020 Sun Communities, LLC Co DP11 H. Snieder Section 13, T6N, R69W Swale Concave 5 G NAD 83 Kim loam NN N NN N 30' 0 1 15'0 5'5 20 Cirsium arvense 60 5 65 Y N UPL FACU 60 300 65 320 4.92 35 Bromus inermis US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP11 Ground frozen could not dig Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix C Approved Jurisdictional Determination Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix D FACWet Assessment Functional Assessment 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 physical, chemical, 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 functions of wetlands within the project area were evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands (FACWet) – Version 3.0 method developed by the Colorado Department of Transportation (Johnson et al. 2013). The FACWet method is a rapid assessment that analyzes the physical and biological form and function of a wetland relative to its native state, or that of a reference standard wetland of the same type. The area of interest (AOI) for the FACWet is defined as “the spatial envelope which encompasses the entire area potentially impacted (directly or indirectly) by a project’s proposed activities” (Johnson et al. 2013). For this project, the AOI was determined by wetlands and waters that would be directly impact. The assessment areas are the total area of delineated wetlands and waters of the U.S. within the AOI that could be impacted directly or indirectly. The FACWet method is based on assessing how outside stressors impact eight fundamental variables, and then modeling the resultant effects on natural functions and overall conditions of the assessment site. The eight variables are habitat connectivity, contributing area, water source, water distribution, water outflow, chemical environment, geomorphology, and vegetation structure and complexity. The functions of the wetland are graded on a scale of 1.00 (A – Reference Standard) to below 0.60 (F – Nonfunctioning), similar to an academic grading scale. The FACWet evaluation yields a cumulative Functional Capacity Index (FCI) score for the assessment area, which relates the degree of FACWet state variable impairment with the overall capacity of the assessment area to perform seven key functions relative to its reference standard. • Support of characteristic wildlife habitat • Support of characteristic fish/aquatic habitat • Flood attenuation • Short- and long-term water storage • Nutrient/toxicant removal • Sediment retention/shoreline stabilization • Production export and food chain support The reference standard for wetlands in the project area is wetlands in the same HGM class with no human influence. Because the assessment identifies stressors affecting the wetland functions of a site, the information may be used to develop more effective compensatory wetland mitigation plans. Following is a brief summary of the results of the FACWet assessment within the assessment area. On November 20, 2020, Hidde Snieder with ERO identified ecological stressors in the wetlands and evaluated their effects on the eight FACWet site variables. The functional variable scores for the assessment areas in the survey area are provided in Table 1 and the FCI scores and composite scores are provided in Table 2. Data collected during the FACWet assessments are documented on the datasheets and figures are attached. Following is a brief summary of the results of the FACWet assessment within each of the assessment areas. Table 1. Variable scores for FACWet method. Variable 6750 College Ave Wetlands Habitat Connectivity 0.63 Contributing Area 0.77 Water Source 0.63 Water Distribution 0.65 Water Outflow 0.58 Chemical Environment 0.64 Geomorphology 0.72 Vegetation Structure and Complexity 0.68 *1.0 to 0.9 – Reference Standard; <0.9 to 0.8 – Highly Functioning; <0.8 to 0.7 – Functioning; <0.7 to 0.6 – Functioning Impaired; <0.6 – Nonfunctioning. Table 2. Functional capacity index scores. Function 6750 College Ave Wetlands Support of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat 0.69 Support of Characteristic Fish/Aquatic Habitat 0.63 Flood Attenuation 0.65 Short- and Long-Term Water Storage 0.62 Nutrient/Toxicant Removal 0.70 Sediment Retention/Shoreline Stabilization 0.68 Production Export/Food Chain Support 0.64 Composite Functional Capacity Indices (FCI) Score 0.66 *1.0 to 0.9 – Reference Standard; <0.9 to 0.8 – Highly Functioning; <0.8 to 0.7 – Functioning; <0.7 to 0.6 – Functioning Impaired; <0.6 – Nonfunctioning. Overall, the wetlands are functioning below a reference standard wetland and are rated as functioning impaired with a score of 0.66 (Table 2). The surrounding residential properties and urban development have affected the existing wetlands in the AOI and act as stressors on its habitat connectivity. In addition, the surrounding development has impacted water quality and caused an increase in stormwater runoff resulting in increased sedimentation and increased nutrient and toxic materials from urban runoff across the majority of the wetlands in the AOI. The wetlands also have several other stressors, including excess herbivory from surrounding prairie dog colonies, historical grazing a monoculture of aggressive vegetation and several List A, List B and C Noxious weeds. The wetland areas scored low due to the high degree of land use changes, changes to the geomorphology of the wetland by a historical berm in the AOI, and changes to the vegetation structure and complexity. Date of Evaluation: Evaluator Name(s): Geographic Datum Used (NAD 83): Elevation Stream Order:1 X 1:24,000 1:100,000 Other 1: X X Intent of Project: (Check all applicable)Restoration Creation X X Measured 4.59 ac.ac.ac. Estimated ac.ac.ac.ac. Assessment Area (AA) Size (Record Area, check appropriate box. Additional spaces are used to record acreage when more than one AA is included in a single assessment) Characteristics or Method used for AA boundary determination: Wetland Ownership:Private land Notes: Purpose of Evaluation (check all applicable):Mitigation Site Mitigation; Post-construction AA is mapped/delineated wetland habitat and OHWM in project area. This evaluation is being performed at: Total Size of Wetland Involved: (Record Area, Check and Describe Measurement Method Used)Estimated Project Information: Mitigation; Pre-construction (Check applicable box) 4.52 Monitoring Other (Describe) Enhancement Site Coordinates (Decimal Degrees, e.g., 38.85, -104.96): -105.069454, 40.492949 4,975 Project Wetland Potentially Impacted Wetlands USGS Quadrangle Map: Map Scale: (Circle one) Sub basin Name (8 digit HUC): Associated stream/water body name: ADMINISTRATIVE CHARACTERIZATION General Information Cache la Poudre; 10190007 Evaluator's professional position and organization: Tributary to Fossil Creek Site Name or ID: Project Name: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins ECS Ecologist and Biologist, ERO Resources Corporation H. Snieder Loveland NAD 83 Location Information: Location Information: 6750 College Avenue 11/20/2020 6750 College Avenue 404 or Other Permit Application #: Applicant Name: Sun Communities X X If the above is checked, please describe the original wetland type if discernable using the table below. AA wetland was created from an upland setting. Water source Surface flow Precipitation Unknown Hydrodynamics Unidirectional Bi-directional Wetland Gradient # Surface Inlets # Surface Outlets Geomorphic Setting (Narrative Description. Include approx. stream order for riverine) HGM class Riverine Depressional Lacustrine Water source Surface flow Precipitation Unknown Hydrodynamics Unidirectional Geomorphic Setting (Narrative Description)Previous HGM Class Riverine Depressional Lacustrine Depressional wetlands that receive water from urban runoff Slope Historical Conditions Previous wetland typology 0 1 2 3 >3 Federally threatened or endangered species are KNOWN to occur in the AA? List Below. Groundwater Vertical Notes (include information on the AA's HGM subclass and regional subclass): AA includes delineated wetlands and channel within the OHWM in the project area (AOI). Federally threatened or endangered species are SUSPECTED to occur in the AA? Species of concern according to the Colorado Natural Heritage (CNHP) are known to occur in the AA? Describe the hydrogeomorphic setting of the wetland by circling all conditions that apply. HGM Setting Slope Depressional wetlands that receive water from urban runoff 0 - 2% 2-4% 4-10% >10% Over-bank 0 1 2 3 >3 ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION 1 Groundwater Vertical AA wetland has been subject to change in HGM classes as a result of anthropogenic modification Organic soils including Histosols or Histic Epipedons are present in the AA (i.e., AA includes core fen habitat). Project will directly impact organic soil portions of the AA including areas possessing either Histosol soils or histic epipedons. Organic soils are known to occur anywhere within the contiguous wetland of which the AA is part. AA wetland maintains its fundamental natural hydrogeomorphic characteristics Current Conditions HYDROGEOMORPHIC SETTING The wetland is a habitat oasis in an otherwise dry or urbanized landscape? Special Concerns Other special concerns (please describe) The site is located within a potential conservation area or element occurrence buffer area as determined by CNHP? Check all that apply See attached map Water Regime Other Modifiers % AA Persistent Palustrine SubclassSystem ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION 2 US FWS habitat classification according as reported in Cowardin et al. (1979). 100B Vegetation Habitat Description Palustrine ClassSubsystem EM Site Map Draw a sketch map of the site including relevant portions of the wetland, AA boundary, structures, habitat classes, and other significant features.Scale: 1 sq. = Hypersaline(7) ; Eusaline(8); Mixosaline(9); Fresh(0); Acid(a); Circumneutral(c); Alkaline/calcareous(i); Organic(g); Mineral(n); Beaver(b); Partially Drained/ditched(d); Farmed(f); Diked/impounded(h); Artificial Substrate(r); Spoil(s); Excavated(x) Floating vascular; Rooted vascular; Algal; Persistent; Non-Persistent; Broad-leaved deciduous; Needle-leaved evergreen; Cobble - gravel; Sand; Mud; Organic Examples Temporarily flooded(A); Saturated(B); Seasonally flooded(C); Seas.-flood./sat.(E); Semi-Perm. flooded(F); Intermittently exposed(G); Artificially flooded(K); Sat./semiperm./Seas. (Y); Int. exposed/permenant(Z) Lacustrine Palustrine Littoral; Limnoral Palustrine Rock Bot. (RB) Uncon Bottom(UB) Aquatic Bed(AB) Rocky Shore(RS) Uncon Shore(US) Emergent(EM) Shrub-scrub(SS) Forested (FO) Riverine Lower perennial; Upper perennial; Intermittent 0.62 1. On the aerial photo, create a 500 m perimeter around the AA. Condition Grade <0.6 F Non- functioning Notes: ERO estimated a historical wetland and riparian of 12.47 acre. ERO estimated a existing wetland and riparian of 5.63 acre. Total wetland/riparian habitat still present is 45.11%. Less than 25% of the historical wetland habitat area within the HCE still in existence (more than 70% of habitat lost). Wetland losses are absent or negligible or there is no evidence to suggest the native landscape within the HCE historically contained other wetland habitats More than 80% of historical wetland habitat area within the HCE is still present (less than 20% of habitat area lost). 80 to 60% of historical wetland habitat area within the HCE is still present (20% to 40% of habitat area lost). <0.7 - 0.6 D Functioning Impaired <0.9 - 0.8 Variable 1: Habitat Connectivity This sub-variable is a measure of how isolated from other naturally-occurring wetlands or riparian habitat the AA has become as the result of habitat destruction. To score this sub-variable, estimate the percent of naturally-occurring wetland/riparian habitat that has been lost (by filling, draining, development, or whatever means) within the 500-meter-wide belt surrounding the AA. This zone is called the Habitat Connectivity Envelope (HCE). In most cases the evaluator must use best professional judgment to estimate the amount of natural wetland loss. Historical photographs, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, hydric soil maps can be helpful in making these determinations. Floodplain maps are especially valuable in river-dominated regions, such as the Front Range urban corridor. Evaluation of landforms and habitat patterns in the context of perceivable land use change is used to steer estimates of the amount of wetland loss within the HCE. 2. The area within this perimeter is the Habitat Connectivity Envelope (HCE). Variable Score Rules for Scoring: 4. Outline the historical extent of wetland and riparian habitats (i.e., existing natural wetlands plus those that have been destroyed). Scoring Guidelines 5. Calculate the area of existing and historical wetlands. Divide the area of existing wetland by the total amount of existing and historical wetland and riparian habitat, and determine the variable score using the guidelines below. Enter sub-variable score at the bottom of p.2 of the Habitat Connectivity data form. 3. Within the HCE, outline the current extent of naturally occurring wetland and riparian habitat. Do not include habitats such as excavated ponds or reservoir induced fringe wetlands. - Use your knowledge of the history of the area and evident land use change to identify where habitat losses have occurred. Additional research can be utilized to increase the accuracy of this estimate including consideration of floodplain maps, historical aerial photographs, soil maps, etc. Less than 60 to 25% of historical wetland habitat area within the HCE is still present (more than 40 to 75% of habitat area lost). 1.0 - 0.9 The Habitat Connectivity Variable is described by two sub-variables – Neighboring Wetland and Riparian Habitat Loss and Barriers to Migration and Dispersal. These sub-variables were treated as independent variables in FACWet Version 2.0. The merging of these variables makes their structure more consistent with that of other composite variables in FACWet. The new variable configuration also makes this landscape variable more accurately reflect the interactions amongst aquatic habitats in Colorado’s agricultural and urbanized landscapes, which have a naturally low density of wetlands. The two Habitat Connectivity Sub-variables are scored in exactly the same manner as their FACWet 2.0 counterparts, as described below. The Habitat Connectivity Variable score is simply the arithmetic average of the two sub-variable scores which is entered on the second page of the Variable 1 data form. If there is little or no wetland or riparian habitat in the Habitat Connectivity Envelope (defined below), then Sub-variable 1.1 is not scored. SV 1.1 - Neighboring Wetland and Riparian Habitat Loss (Do not score if few or no wetlands naturally exist in the HCE) A Reference Standard B Highly Functioning <0.8 - 0.7 C Functioning x X X Condition Grade SV 1.1 Score 0.62 SV 1.2 Score 0.63 Variable 1: Habitat Connectivity p. 2 SV 1.2: Migration/Dispersal Barriers Add SV 1.1 and 1.2 scores and divide by two to calculate variable score <0.6Stressors = artificial barriersStressors Tertiary Roadway Bike Path Aquatic Organism Barriers Aerial exposure F Non-functioning <0.7 - 0.6 Variable Score <0.9 - 0.8 <0.8 - 0.7 1.0 - 0.9 B Highly Functioning Barriers impeding migration/dispersal between the AA and up to 33% of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat highly permeable and easily passed by most organisms. Examples could include gravel roads, minor levees, ditches or barbed-wire fences. More significant barriers (see "functioning category below) could affect migration to up to 10% of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat. Variable 1 Score Barriers to migration and dispersal retard the ability of many organisms/propagules to pass between the AA and up to 66% of wetland/riparian habitat. Passage of organisms and propagules through such barriers is still possible, but it may be constrained to certain times of day, be slow, dangerous or require additional travel. Busy two-lane roads, culverted areas, small to medium artificial water bodies or small earthen dams would commonly rate a score in this range. More significant barriers (see "functioning impaired" category below) could affect migration to up to 10% of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat. C Functioning AA is essentially isolated from surrounding wetland/riparian habitat by impermeable migration and dispersal barriers. An interstate highway or concrete-lined water conveyance canal are examples of barriers which would generally create functional isolation between the AA and wetland/riparian habitat in the HCE. A Reference Standard No appreciable barriers exist between the AA and other wetland and riparian habitats in the HCE; or there are no other wetland and riparian areas in the HCE. Scoring Guidelines D Functioning Impaired Barriers to migration and dispersal preclude the passage of some types of organisms/propagules between the AA and up to 66% of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat. Travel of those animals which can potential negotiate the barrier are strongly restricted and may include a high chance of mortality. Up to 33% of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat could be functionally isolated from the AA. 0.63 This sub-variable is intended to rate the degree to which the AA has become isolated from existing neighboring wetland and riparian habitat by artificial barriers that inhibit migration or dispersal of organisms. On the aerial photograph, identify the man-made barriers within the HCE that intercede between the AA and surrounding wetlands and riparian areas, and identify them by type on the stressor list. Score this variable based on the barriers’ impermeability to migration and dispersal and the amount of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat they affect. Rules for Scoring: 1. On the aerial photo, outline all existing wetland and riparian habitat areas within the HCE. This includes naturally occurring habitats, as well as those purposefully created or induced by land use change. 2. Identify artificial barriers to dispersal and migration of organisms within the HCE that intercede between the AA and surrounding habitats. Mark the stressors present with a check in the first column and describe the general nature, severity and extent of each. List additional stressors in empty rows at the bottom of the table and explain. 3. Considering the composite effect of all of identified barriers to migration and dispersal (i.e., stressors), assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. Comments/description Ditch or Aqueduct Trilby Road to the north, College Ave to the west Secondary Highway Major Highway Artificial Water Body Railroad Fence Urban Development Agricultural Development Fence north of AA 100 Precent of AA with Buffer 26-50% of AA with Buffer 0-25% of AA with Buffer <0.9 - 0.8 <0.8 - 0.7 <0.7 - 0.6 <0.6 70-90% of AA with Buffer Non-functioning Functioning Impaired Functioning Variable 2: Contributing Area The AA's Contributing Area is defined as the 250-meter-wide zone surrounding the perimeter of the AA. This variable is a measure of the capacity of that area to support characteristic functions of high quality wetland habitat. Depending on its condition, the contributing area can help maintain wetland condition or it can degrade it. Contributing Area condition is evaluated by considering the AA's Buffer and its Surrounding Land Use. Buffers are strips or patches of more-or-less natural upland and/or wetland habitat more than 5m wide. Buffers are contiguous with the AA boundary and they intercede between it and more intensively used lands. The AA Buffer is characterized with three sub-variables: Buffer Condition, Buffer Extent, and Average Buffer Width. The Surrounding Land Use Sub-variable considers changes within the Contributing Area that limit its capacity to support characteristic wetland functions. Many of the acute, on-site effects of land use change in the Contributing Area are specifically captured by Variables 3 - 8. Rules for Scoring: 1. Delimit the Contributing Area on an aerial photograph as the zone within 250 meters of the outer boundary of the AA. 2. Evaluate and then rate the Buffer Condition sub-variable using the scoring guidelines. Record the score in the cell provided on the datasheet. 3. Indicate on the aerial photograph zones surrounding the AA which have ≥5m of buffer vegetation and those which do not. 4. Calculate the percentage of the AA which has a Buffer and record the value where indicated on the data sheet. 5. Rate the Buffer Extent Sub-variable using the scoring guidelines. 6.Determine the average Buffer width by drawing a line perpendicularly from the AA boundary to the outer extent of the buffer habitat. Measure line length and record its value on the data sheet. Repeat this process until a total of 8 lines have been sampled. 7. Calculate the average buffer width and record value on the data form. Then determine the sub-variable score using the scoring guidelines. 8.Score the Surrounding Land Use sub-variable by recording land use changes on the stressor list that affect the capacity of the landscape to support characteristic wetland functioning. 9. Enter the lowest of the three Buffer sub-variable scores along with the Surrounding Land Use Sub-variable score in the Contributing Area Variable scoring formula at the bottom of p. 2 of the data form. The Contributing Area Variable is the average of the two sub-variable scores. 51-69% of AA with Buffer 1.0 - 0.9 90 - 100% of AA with Buffer SV 2.2 - Buffer Extent SV 2.2 - Buffer Extent 1.00 Highly Functioning Reference Standard 1.0 - 0.9 <0.9 - 0.8 Buffer Condition Scoring Guidelines Buffer vegetation is predominately native vegetation, human-caused disturbance of the substrate is not evident, and human visitation is minimal. Common examples: Wilderness areas, undeveloped forest and range lands. Buffer vegetation may have a mixed native-nonnative composition, but characteristic structure and complexity remain. Soils are mostly undisturbed or have recovered from past human disturbance. Little or only low-impact human visitation. Buffers with higher levels of substrate disturbance may be included here if the buffer is still able to maintain predominately native vegetation. Common examples: Dispursed camping areas in national forests, common in wildland parks (e.g. State Parks) and open spaces. Reference Standard Highly Functioning Condition Grade SV 2.1 - Buffer Condition SV 2.1 - Buffer Condition Score % Buffer Scoring Guidelines 0.65 Subvariable Score Condition Class <0.8 - 0.7 <0.7 - 0.6 <0.6 Buffer vegetation is substantially composed of non-native species. Vegetation structure may be somewhat altered, such as by brush clearing. Moderate substrate distrbance and compaction occurs, and small pockets of greater disturbance may exist. Common examples: City natural areas, mountain hay meadows. Buffer vegetation is substantially composed of non-native species and vegetation structure has been strongly altered by the complete removal of one or more strata. Soil disturbance and the intensity of human visitation are generally high. Common examples: Open lands around resource extraction sites (e.g., gravel mines), clear cut logging areas, ski slopes. Buffer is nearly or entirely absent. Functioning Functioning Impaired Non-functioning Subvariable Score Record measured buffer widths in the spaces below and average. 20.79 67.36 228.5 33.65 76.88 250 11.04 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 X X X X Biological Resource Extraction No appreciable land use change has been imposed Surrounding Landscape. ( <0.6 The Surrounding Landscape is essentially comletely developed or is otherwise a cause of severe ecological stress on wetland habitats. Commercial developments or highly urban landscapes generally rate a score of less than 0.6. Land use changes within the Surrounding Landscape has been substantial including the a moderate to high coverage (up to 50%) of impermeable surfaces, bare soil, or other artificial surfaces; considerable in-flow urban runoff or fertilizer-rich waters common. Supportive capacity of the land has been greatly diminished but not totally extinguished. Intensively logged areas, low- density urban developments, some urban parklands and many cropping situations would commonly rate a score within this range. Buffer Score (Lowest score) 0.82 20.72 <0.7 - 0.6 Intensive Agriculture Orchards or Nurseries Livestock Grazing Variable Score Dams/impoundments <0.8 - 0.7 C Functioning Condition Grade Scoring Guidelines A Reference Standard 1.0 - 0.9 <0.9 - 0.8 Some land use change has occurred in the Surrounding Landscape, but changes have minimal effect on the the landscape's capacity to support characteristic aquatic functioning, either because land use is not intensive, for example haying, light grazing, or low intensity silviculture, or more substantial changes occur in approximately less than 10% of the area. Rural Residential Urban Parklands Residential development 250 117 Variable 2: Contributing Area (p. 2) Urban Stressors Stressors = Land Use ChangesPhysical Resource Extraction Artificial Water body SV 2.4 - Surrounding Land Use Score Line # SV 2.3 - Average Buffer Width Robert Benson Lake to the south 0.82 SV 2.3 - Average Buffer Width Score Buffer Width (m) <0.7 - 0.6 Trilby Road to the north College Ave to the West Condition Grade Catalog and characterize land use changes in the surrounding landscape and score.0.72 Average Buffer width is 31-100m Average Buffer width is 0-5mNon-functioning <0.8 - 0.7 SV 2.4 - Surrounding Land Use Functioning <0.6 Functioning Impaired 0.77Variable 2 Score+ D Functioning Impaired F Non-functioning Surrounding Land Use ) ÷ = 1.0 - 0.9 Surrounding Landscape has been subjected to a marked shift in land use, however, the land retains much of its capacity to support natural wetland function and it is not an overt source of pollutants or sediment. Moderate-intensity land uses such as dry-land farming, urban "green" corridors, or moderate cattle grazing would commonly be placed within this scoring range. Transportation Corridor Comments/description Dryland Farming Industrial/commercial Urban development B Highly Functioning Average Buffer width is 6-30m Avg. Buffer Width (m) Average Buffer width is 190-250m Average Buffer width is 101-189m<0.9 - 0.8 Highly Functioning Reference Standard 6 Buffer Width Scoring GuidelinesSubvariable Score T Scoring rules:XXXXXCondition Grade 0.63 Culverts or Constrictions Constrictions alongs ponds upstream Groundwater pumping Draw-downs Storm Drain/Urban Runoff Increased Drainage Area Mining/Natural Gas Extraction Point Source (urban, ind., ag.) From adjancent development Impermeable Surface Runoff Irrigation Return Flows Non-point Source Adjacent residential development has increased hydrology Variable Score Actively Managed Hydrology Comments/description Ditches or Drains (tile, etc.) Dams Diversions B Highly Functioning F Non- functioning Unnatural drawdown events common and of mild to moderate intensity and/or duration; or uniform depletion up to 50%; or moderate to substantial reduction of peak flows or capacity of water to perform work. Water source diminished enough to threaten or extinguish wetland hydrology in the AA. Variable 3 Score <0.9 - 0.8 <0.8 - 0.7 Frequency, duration or magnitude of unnaturally high-water great enough to change the fundamental characteristics of the wetland. Unnatural drawdown events occasional, short duration and/or mild; or uniform depletion up to 20%; or mild to moderate reduction of peak flows or capacity of water to perform work. Depletion Unnatural drawdown events minor, rare or non- existent, very slight uniform depletion, or trivial alteration of hydrodynamics. C Functioning Unnatural drawdown events occur frequently with a moderate to high intensity and/or duration; or uniform depletion up to 75%; or substantial reduction of peak flows or capacity of water to perform work. Wetlands with actively managed or wholly artificial hydrology will usually score in this range or lower. A Reference Standard Variable 3: Water Source This variable is concerned with up-gradient hydrologic connectivity. It is a measure of impacts to the AA's water source, including the quantity and timing of water delivery, and the ability of source water to perform work such as sediment transport, erosion, soil pore flushing, etc. To score this variable, identify stressors that alter the source of water to the AA, and record their presence on the stressor list. Stressors can impact water source by depletion, augmentation, or alteration of inflow timing or hydrodynamics. This variable is designed to assess water quantity, power and timing, not water quality. Water quality will be evaluated in Variable 7. Stressors <0.6 <0.7 - 0.6 Augmentation Unnatural high-water events minor, rare or non- existent, slight uniform increase in amount of inflow, or trivial alteration of hydrodynamics. Occasional unnatural high-water events, short in duration and/or mild in intensity; or uniform augmentation up to 20%; or mild to moderate increase of peak flows or capacity of water to perform work. Common occurrence of unnatural high-water events, of a mild to moderate intensity and/or duration; or uniform augmentation up to 50%; or moderate to substantial increase of peak flows or capacity of water to perform work. Common occurrence of unnatural high-water events, some of which may be severe in nature or exist for a substantial portion of the growing season; or uniform augmentation more than 50% or capacity of water to perform work. Wetlands with actively managed or wholly artificial hydrology will usually score in this range or lower. 1. Use the stressor list and knowledge of the watershed to catalog type-specific impairments of the AA’s water source. Mark the stressors present with a check in the first column and describe the general nature, severity and extent of each. List additional stressors in empty rows at the bottom of the table and explain. 2. Considering the composite effect of stressors on the water source, rate the condition of this variable with the aid of the scoring guidelines. D Functioning Impaired Transbasin Diversion 1.0 - 0.9 T Scoring rules:XAlteration of Water Source XXCondition Grade Historical active floodplain areas are almost never wetted from overbank flooding, and/or groundwater infiltration is effectively cut off. Less than 10% of the AA is affected by in situ hydrologic alteration; or more widespread impacts result in less than a 2 in. (5 cm) change in mean growing season water table elevation. Natural active floodplain areas flood on a normal recurrence interval. No evidence of alteration of flooding and subirrigation duration and intensity. Dikes/Levees/Berms Non-riverine Riverine Little or no alteration has been made to the way in which water is distributed throughout the wetland. AA maintains a natural hydrologic regime. <0.8 - 0.7 B Highly Functioning<0.9 - 0.8 D Functioning Impaired C Functioning In channel-adjacent area, periods of drying or flooding are common; or uniform shift in the hydrograph near root depth. 33 to 66% of the AA is affected by in situ hydrologic alteration; or more widespread impacts result in a 6 in. (15 cm) or less change in mean growing season water table elevation. Water table behavior must still meet jurisdictional criteria to merit this rating. Adjacent to the channel, unnatural periods of drying or flooding are the norm; or uniform shift in the hydrograph greater than root depth. Channel-adjacent areas have occasional unnatural periods of drying or flooding; or uniform shift in the hydrograph less than typical root depth. Between 10 and 33% of the AA is affected by in situ hydrologic alteration; or more widespread impacts result in a 4 in. (5 cm) or less change in mean growing season water table elevation. Artificial Banks/Shoreline Variable Score Weirs 0.65Variable 4 Score Comments/description Increased runoff due to urban development <0.7 - 0.6 <0.6 Ditches Ponding/Impoundment Culverts Variable 4: Water Distribution Ponding likely occurs by artificial berm constructed north of AA 2. Considering all of the stressors identified, assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. In most cases, the Water Source variable score will set the upper limit for the Water Distribution score. This variable is concerned with hydrologic connectivity within the AA. It is a measure of alteration to the spatial distribution of surface and groundwater within the AA. These alterations are manifested as local changes to the hydrograph and generally result from geomorphic modifications within the AA. To score this variable, identify stressors within the AA that alter flow patterns and impact the hydrograph of the AA, including localized increases or decreases to the depth or duration of the water table or surface water. Because the wetland’s ability to distribute water in a characteristic fashion is fundamentally dependent on the condition of its water source, in most cases the Water Source variable score will define the upper limit Water Distribution score . For example, if the Water Source variable is rated at 0.85, the Water Distribution score will usually have the potential to attain a maximum score of 0.85. Additional stressors within or outside the lower end of the AA effecting water distribution (e.g., ditches and levees) will reduce the score from the maximum value. 1. Identify impacts to the natural distribution of water throughout the AA and catalog them in the stressor table. Road Grades Stressors More than 66% of the AA is affected by hydrologic alteration which changes the fundamental functioning of the wetland system, generally exhibited as a conversion to upland or deep water habitat. F Non-functioning Hardened/Engineered Channel Channel Incision/Entrenchment Enlarged Channel A Reference Standard1.0 - 0.9 Diversions Sediment/Fill Accumulation T Scoring rules: Alteration of Water Source XXCondition Grade <0.6 High- or low-water outflows are moderately affected, mild alteration of intermediate level outflow occurs; or hydrodynamics moderately affected. F Non-functioning 0.58 Road Grades Culverts Diversions Constrictions Variable Score Variable 5 Score Confined Bridge Openings B Highly Functioning The natural outflow regime is profoundly impaired. Down-gradient hydrologic connection severed or nearly so. Alterations may cause widespread unnatural persistent flooding or dewatering of the wetland system. Scoring Guidelines Stressors have little to no effect on the magnitude, timing or hydrodynamics of the AA water outflow regime.A Reference Standard D Functioning Impaired C Functioning Dikes/Levees Channel Incision/Entrenchment <0.8 - 0.7 <0.7 - 0.6 1.0 - 0.9 <0.9 - 0.8 Outflow at all stages is moderately to highly impaired resulting in persistent flooding of portions of the AA or unnatural drainage; or outflow hydrodynamics severely disrupted. High- or low-water outflows are mildly to moderately affected, but at intermediate ("normal") levels flow continues essentially unaltered in quantity or character. Variable 5: Water Outflow Stressors Comments/description Outflow is confined to a ditch north of the AA 1. Identify impacts to the natural outflow of water from the AA and catalog them in the stressor table. 2.Considering all of the stressors identified, assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. Take in to account the cumulative effect of stressors on the wetland's ability to export water and water-borne materials. In most cases the Water Source variable will set the upper limit for the Water Outflow score. Ditches Weirs This variable is concerned with down-gradient hydrologic connectivity and the flow of water and water-borne materials and energy out of the AA. In particular it illustrates the degree to which the AA can support the functioning of down-gradient habitats. It is a measure of impacts that affect the hydrologic outflow of water including the passage of water through its normal low- and high-flow surface outlets, infiltration/groundwater recharge, and the energetic characteristics of water delivered to dependent habitats. In some cases, alteration of evapotranspiration rates may be significant enough of a factor to consider in scoring. Score this variable by identifying stressors that impact the means by which water is exported from the AA. To evaluate this variable focus on how water, energy and associated materials are exported out of the AA and their ability it support down-gradient habitats in a manner consistent with their HGM (regional) subclass. Because the wetland’s ability to export water and materials in a characteristic fashion is to a very large degree dependent the condition of its water source, as with the Water Distribution variable, in most cases the Water Source variable score will define the upper limit Water Outflow score . Hardened/Engineered Channel Artificial Stream Banks Comments Dredging/Excavation/Mining XXGrading Compaction Plowing/Disking Excessive Sedimentation Dumping Hoof Shear/Pugging Aggregate or Mineral Mining Sand Accumulation Channel Instability/Over Widening Excessive Bank Erosion Channelization Reconfigured Stream Channels Artificial Banks/Shoreline Beaver Dam Removal Substrate Embeddedness Lack or Excess of Woody Debris Condition Grade Scoring Rules: 1. Identify impacts to geomorphological setting and topography within the AA and record them on the stressor checklist.GeneralThis variable is a measure of the degree to which the geomorphic setting has been altered within the AA. Changes to the surface configuration and natural topography constitute stressors. Such stressors may be observed in the form of fill, excavation, dikes, sedimentation due to absence of flushing floods, etc. In riverine systems, geomorphic changes to the stream channel should be considered if the channel is within the AA (i.e, small is size). Alterations may involve the bed and bank (substrate embeddedness or morphological changes), stream instability, and stream channel reconfiguration. Geomorphic changes are usually ultimately manifested as changes to wetland surface hydrology and water relations with vegetation. Geomorphic alterations can also directly affect soil properties, such as near-surface texture, and the wetland chemical environment such as the redox state or nutrient composition in the rooting zone. In rating this variable, do not include these resultant effects of geomorphic change; rather focus on the physical impacts within the footprint of the alteration within the AA – For example, the width and depth of a ditch or the size of a levee within the AA would describe the extent of the stressors. The secondary effects of geomorphic change are addressed by other variables. All alterations to geomorphology should be evaluated including small-scale impacts such as pugging, hoof sheer, and sedimentation which can be significant but not immediately obvious. Border of the AA has histroically been graded Stressors Variable 6: Geomorphology <0.8 - 0.7 Scoring GuidelinesVariable Score 1.0 - 0.9 A Reference Standard <0.9 - 0.8 2.Considering all of the stressors identified, assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. Channels OnlyFill, including dikes, road grades, etc.Area along the northern border of the AA is diked and bermed 0.64Variable 6 Score Topography essentially unaltered from the natural state, or alterations appear to have a minimal effect on wetland functioning and condition. Patch or microtopographic complexity may be slightly altered, but native plant communities are still supported. Alterations to topography result in small but detectable changes to habitat conditions in some or all of the AA; or more severe impacts exist but affect less than 10% of the AA. B Highly Functioning Changes to AA topography may be pervasive but generally mild to moderate in severity. May include patches of more significant habitat alteration; or more severe alterations affect up to 20 % of the AA. D Functioning Impaired At least one important surface type or landform has been eliminated or created; microtopography has been strongly impacted throughout most or all of the AA; or more severe alterations affect up to 50% of the AA. Evidence that widespread diminishment or alteration of native plant community exist due to physical habitat alterations. Most incidentally created wetland habitat such as that created by roadside ditches and the like would score in this range or lower. C Functioning <0.6 F Non- functioning <0.7 - 0.6 Pervasive geomorphic alterations have caused a fundamental change in site character and functioning, commonly resulting in a conversion to upland or deepwater habitat. Scoring rules: X X X X X X X X X CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List Reservoir/Power Plant Discharge Industrial Discharge Mechanical Soil Disturbance CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List Unnatural Saturation/Desaturation Cumulative Watershed NPS 0.68 -If the AA is part of a water body that is recognized as impaired or recommended for TMDL development for one of the factors, then score that sub-variable 0.65 or lower. 3. For each sub-variable, determine its score using the scoring guideline table provided on the second page of the scoring sheet. Scoring sub-variables is carried out in exactly the same way as normal variable scoring. Nearby Industrial Sites 0.63 0.72 0.65 0.73 No shading evident Livestock Excessive Temperature Regime SV 7.3 Toxic contamination/ pH Storm Water Runoff Cumulative Watershed NPS SV 7.4 Temperature Lack of Shading Road Drainage/Runoff Point Source Discharge Dumping/introduced Soil Metal staining on rocks and veg. Acid Mine Drainage SV 7.5 Soil chemistry/ Redox potential Historical horse pasture Fish/Wildlife Impacts Vegetation Impacts Artificial berm Urbanized landscape Urbanized landscape CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List Recent Chemical Spills Agricultural Runoff Agricultural Runoff Urbanized landscape SV 7.2 Sedimentation/ Turbidity Cumulative Watershed NPS Excessive Turbidity Fine Sediment Plumes Nearby Construction Site Excessive Deposition Excessive Erosion Nearby development 1. Stressors are grouped into sub-variables which have a similar signature or set of causes. Variable 7: Water and Soil Chemical Environment Comments 2. Use the indicator list to identify each stressor impacting the chemical environment of the AA. This variable concerns the chemical environment of the soil and water media within the AA, including pollutants, water and soil characteristics. The origin of pollutants may be within or outside the AA. Score this variable by listing indicators of chemical stress in the AA. Consider point source and non-point sources of pollution, as well as mechanical or hydrologic changes that alter the chemical environment. Because water quality frequently cannot be inferred directly, the presence of stressors is often identified by the presence of indirect indicators. Five sub-variables are used to describe the Water and Soil Chemical Environment: Nutrient Enrichment/Eutrophication/Oxygen; Sedimentation/Turbidity; Toxic Contamination/pH; Temperature; and Soil Chemistry and Redox Potential. Utilization of web-based data mining tools is highly recommended to help inform and support variable scores. 4. Transcribe sub-variable scores to the following variable scoring page and compute the sum. Excessive Algae or Aquatic Veg. SV 7.1 Nutrient Enrichment/ Eutrophication/ Oxygen (D.O.) Agricultural Runoff Septic/Sewage Livestock Cumulative Watershed NPS 5. The lowest sub-variable score sets the letter grade range. The composite of sub-variables influences the score within that range. Urbanized landscape Sub- variable Score Sub-variable Stressor Indicator CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List ++++= The factor scores sum >3.0 but ≤3.5 Single Factor F Non- functioning 0.72 A Reference Standard Any single factor scores ≥ 0.8 but < 0.9 The factor scores sum < 3.0 Any single factor scores ≥ 7.0 but < 0.8 Composite Score <0.9 - 0.8 < 0.6 Temperature0.63 0.65 <0.7 - 0.6 Any single factor scores ≥ 0.6 but <0.7 C Functioning Toxic contamination/pHVariable 7: Water and Soil Chemical Environment p.2 D Functioning Impaired B Highly Functioning 1.0 - 0.9 The factor scores sum >4.0 but ≤4.5 The factor scores sum >3.5 but ≤ 4.0 No single factor scores < 0.9 The factor scores sum > 4.5 <0.8 - 0.7 Sub-variable Scoring Guidelines Variable Score Condition GradeNutrient enrichment/Eutrophication/Oxygen (D.O.)C Functioning <0.9 - 0.8 <0.8 - 0.7 Sedimentation/TurbidityInput each sub-variable score from p. 1 of the V7 data form and calculate the sum. Use the table to score the Chemical Environment Variable circling the applicable scoring rules. Scoring Rules Scoring Guidelines Stress indicators not present or trivial.A Reference Standard <0.6 Variable Score Condition Class <0.7 - 0.6 D Functioning Impaired 1.0 - 0.9 B Highly Functioning 0.72 Stress indicators scarcely present and mild, or otherwise not occurring in more than 10% of the AA. Stress indicators present at mild to moderate levels, or otherwise not occurring in more than 33% of the AA. Stress indicators present at moderate to high levels, or otherwise not occurring in more than 66% of the AA Stress indicators strongly evident throughout the AA at levels which apparently alter the fundamental chemical environment of the wetland system Variable 7 Score Any single factor scores < 0.6 3.41 F Non-functioning Sum of Sub-variable Scores0.680.72 0.73 Soil chemistry/Redox potential Aquatic x x x x ====Condition Grade = Veg. Layer Sub- variable Score 0.680.82 0.72 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CURRENT COVERAGE AND REFERENCE/EXPECTED See sub-variable scoring guidelines on following page Reference/Expected % Cover of Layer 0.10 0.25 90.00 90.35 <0.6 Sub-variable 8 Scoring Guidelines: Variable Score Variable 8 Score D Functioning Impaired <0.7 - 0.6 C Functioning<0.8 - 0.7 Stressors present with enough intensity to cause significant changes in the character of vegetation, including alteration of layer coverage, structural complexity and species composition. The vegetation layer retains its essential character though. AA's with a high proportion of non-native grasses will commonly fall in this class. Stress related change should generally be less than 33% for any given attribute (e.g., 33% cover of invasive, 33% reduction in richness or cover) if the stressor is evenly distributed throughout the wetland. Stress related change could be as much as 66% for a given attribute if stressors are confined to patches comprising less than 25% of the wetland. F Non- functioning Stressor intensity severe enough to cause profound changes to the fundamental character of the vegetation layer. Stress-related change should generally be less than 66% for any given attribute (e.g., 66% cover of invasive, 66% reduction in richness or cover) if the stressor is evenly distributed throughout the wetland. Stress related change could be as much as 80% of a given attribute if stressors are confined to patches comprising less than 50% of the wetland. Vegetation layer has been completely removed or altered to the extent that is no longer comparable to the natural structure, diversity and composition. Scoring Guidelines Based on the list of stressors identified above, rate the severity of their cumulative effect on vegetation structure and complexity for each vegetation layer. Stressors present at intensity levels sufficient to cause detectable, but minor, changes in layer composition. Stress related change should generally be less than 10% for any given attribute (e.g., 10% cover of invasive, 10% reduction in richness or cover) if the stressor is evenly distributed throughout the wetland. Stress related change could be as high as 33% for a given attribute if stressors are confined to patches comprising less than 10% of the wetland. A Reference Standard B Highly Functioning Stressors not present or with an intensity low enough as to not detectably affect the structure, diversity or composition of the vegetation layer.1.0 - 0.9 <0.9 - 0.8 0.68 Variable 8: Vegetation Structure and Complexity p. 2 61.462 x Noxious Weeds Exotic/Invasive spp. Tree Harvest Brush Cutting/Shrub Removal Livestock Grazing X +++= ÷ 0.08 0.18 61.20 Over Saturation Weighted Sub-variable Score Dewatering Historical grazing Prairie dogs Variable 8: Vegetation Structure and Complexity 4. Record the Reference Standard or expected percent coverage of each vegetation layer to create the sub-variable weighting factor. The condition of predominant vegetation layers has a greater influence on the variable score than do minor components. 5. Enter the percent cover values as decimals in the row of the stressor table labeled " Reference/expected Percent Cover of Layer". Note, percentages will often sum to more than 100% (1.0). 1. Determine the number and types of vegetation layers present within the AA. Make a judgment as to whether additional layers were historically present using direct evidence such as stumps, root wads or historical photographs. Indirect evidence such as local knowledge and expert opinion can also be used in this determination. 2. Do not score vegetation layers that would not normally be present in the wetland type being assessed. Rules for Scoring: This variable is a measure of the condition of the wetland's vegetation relative to its native state. It particularly focuses on the wetland's ability to perform higher-order functions such as support of wildlife populations, and influence primary functions such as flood-flow attenuation, channel stabilization and sediment retention. Score this variable by listing stressors that have affected the structure, diversity, composition and cover of each vegetation stratum that would normally be present in the HGM (regional) subclass being assessed. For this variable, stressor severity is a measure of how much each vegetation stratum differs functionally from its natural condition or from the natural range of variability exhibited the HGM subclass or regional subclass. This variable has four sub- variables, each corresponding to a stratum of vegetation: Tree Canopy; Shrub Layer; Herbaceous Layer; and Aquatics. 6. Determine the severity of stressors acting on each individual canopy layers, indicating their presence with checks in the appropriate boxes of the stressor table. The difference between the expected and observed stratum coverages is one measure of stratum alteration. 7. Determine the sub-variable score for each valid vegetation layer using the scoring guidelines on the second page of the scoring sheet. Enter each sub-variable score in the appropriate cell of the row labeled "Veg. Layer Sub-variable Score". If a stratum has been wholly removed score it as 0.5. 8. Multiply each layer's Reference Percent Cover of Layer score by its Veg. Layer Sub-variable scores and enter the products in the labled cells. These are the weighted sub-variable scores. Individually sum the Reference Percent Cover of Layer and Weighted Sub- variables scores. Current % Coverage of Layer x Tree Shrub Herb Cattails 3. Estimate and record the current coverage of each vegetation layer at the top of the table. Stressor Multiple List A List B and C species Cattails X x 9. Divide the sum of "Veg. Layer Sub-variable Scores" by the total coverage of all layers scored. This product is the Variable 8 score. Enter this number in the labeled box at the bottom of this page. Vegetation Layers 5 90 Comments xLoss of Zonation/Homogenization Excessive Herbivory Mowing/Haying Herbicide Scoring Procedure: Functional Capacity Indices Function 1 -- Support of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat V1connect +V2CA +(2 x V8veg) 0.63 +0.77 +1.36 +++=2.76 ÷ 4 = Function 2 -- Support of Characteristic Fish/aquatic Habitat (3 x V3source)+(2 x V4dist)+(2 x V5outflow)+V6geom +V7chem 1.89 +1.30 +1.16 +0.64 +0.72 +=5.71 ÷ 9 = Function 3 -- Flood Attenuation V2CA +(2 x V3source)+(2 x V4dist)+(2 x V5outflow)+V6geom +V8veg 0.77 +1.26 +1.30 +1.16 +0.64 +0.68 =5.81 ÷ 9 = Function 4 -- Short- and Long-term Water Storage V3source +(2 x V4dist)+(2 x V5outflow)V6geom 0.63 +1.30 +1.16 +0.64 ++=3.73 ÷ 6 = Function 5 -- Nutrient/Toxicant Removal (2 x V2CA)+(2 x V4dist)+V6geom V7chem 1.54 +1.30 +0.64 +0.72 ++=4.20 ÷ 6 = Function 6 -- Sediment Retention/Shoreline Stabilization V2CA +(2 x V6geom)+(2 x V8veg) 0.77 +1.28 +1.36 +++=3.41 ÷ 5 = Function 7 -- Production Export/Food Chain Support V1connect +(2 x V5outflow)+V6geom +V7chem +(2 x V8veg) 0.63 +1.16 +0.64 +0.72 +1.36 +=4.51 ÷ 7 = Variable 3:Buffer & Landscape Context4. Divide the total functional points achieved by the functional points possible. The typical number of total points possible is provided, however, if a variable is added or subtracted to FCI equation the total possible points must be adjusted Habitat Connectivity (Connect) Water Distribution (Dist) Water Source (Source) Contributing Area (CA) 0.63 0.65Variable 4: Geomorphology (Geom) Vegetation Structure and Complexity (Veg) 0.77 FACWet Score Card Variable 1: Variable 2: 5. Calculate the Composite FCI, by adding the FCI scores and dividing by the total number of functions scored (usually 7). 6. If scoring is done directly in the Excel spreadsheet, all values will be transferred and calculated automatically. VARIABLE SCORE TABLE 1. Transcribe variable scores from each variable data sheet to the corresponding cell in the variable score table. 0.68 0.72HydrologyVariable 5: 2. In each Functional Capacity Index (FCI) equation, enter the corresponding variable scores in the equation cells. Do not enter values in the crossed cells lacking labels. 3. Add the variable scores to calculate the total functional points achieved for each function.Abiotic and Biotic HabitatVariable 6: Variable 7:Chemical Environment (Chem) 0.64 4.62 Variable 8: Total Functional Points 0.63 Composite FCI Score Divide by the Number of Functions Scored 0.58Water Outflow (Outflow) Sum of Individual FCI Scores 0.64 ÷ 7 0.68 FCI 0.66 0.69 0.63 0.65 0.62 0.70 Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc. File: 10761 FACWet W1.mxd (WH) November 2, 2020 ± Figure 1 Functional Wetland Assessment 6750 College Avenue Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2019 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 700350feet Habitat Connectivity Envelope (500 m) Historical Riparian Habitat Image Source: Maxar Vivid©, March 17, 2019Path: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\FACWet\10761 FACWet W1.mxd Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc. File: 10761 FACWet W1.mxd (WH) November 10, 2020 ± Figure 2 Functional Wetland Assessment 6750 College Avenue Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2019 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 700350feet Assessment Area Habitat Connectivity Envelope (500 m) Contributing Area (250 m) Existing Artificial Riparian Habitat Existing Natural Wetland and Riparian Habitat Historical Riparian Habitat Landuse Low Impact Grazing Rural Development Urban Development Area of Interest Migration/ Dispersal Barrier Image Source: Maxar Vivid©, March 17, 2019Path: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\FACWet\10761 FACWet W1.mxd Ecological Characterization Study 6750 College Avenue Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix E U.S. Fish and Wildlife No Concerns Letter ColoradoES, FW6 <coloradoes@ftvs.gov> IEXTERNALI 6750 College Avenue Habitat Assessment l message Hidde Snieder <HSnieder@eroresources.com> To: "coloradoes@fws. gov" <coloradoes@fws. gov> Cc: Christine Sveum <csveum@atwell-group.com> Tue, Jan 7,2020 at 8:53 AM Drue, Atwell, LLC. On behalf of Sun Communities is requesting Technical Assistance regarding threatened and endangered species for the 6750 College Avenue project in Larimer County, Colorado. Please see the attached letter which includes the a description ofthe project and conditions within the project area. Please let us know if you need additional information or have any questions. Thanks, Hidde Snieder B io lo9 ist ERO n".ou..es corporation 303.830. 1 188 O | 303.619.5838 C I hsnieder@eroresources.com I www.eroresources.com ?ozo rA - o5(7 J 6750 College Ave Habitat Assessment,pdf 1980K U.S. FISH AND WITDTIFE SERVICE E No coNcERNs tr CONCUR NOT UKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFE T ENT 151n - Mo suifublt kab;le+ 6. lislql 52ec-iee - Area o( 5ub ucbaa 5lraul - N caccet oLcft.t'on is terertl mi lcs au.\l httpsr/mait.google.com/msil/b/AHl rexOz[r\?2VVr36pzmTTrN6jbvs6780J4SGY7HWo-URVU513OEE/ui0?ak=0cl c3e91bc8view=pt&search=all&perml... 111 1n 12020 DEPARTI!!ENT OF THE INTERIOR lVail - IEXTERNAL]6750 College Avenue Habital Assessment 0Boal @r{}.lEcT Colorado furlstant Fleld