HomeMy WebLinkAboutSANCTUARY ON THE GREEN - PDP210018 - REPORTS - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
Sanctuary on the Green
Environmental Characterization Study
Field Work: July, 2018
Report: January, 2019
Revised: September, 2020
CEDAR CREEK
ASSOCIATES, INC.
i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Desktop Review ..................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Site Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 3
4.0 Ecological characterization ........................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 4
4.1.1 Noxious Weeds ..................................................................................................... 8
4.1.2 Tree Inventory ...................................................................................................... 8
4.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 9
4.3 Drainage Features ................................................................................................................ 12
4.4 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 13
4.4.1 Avifauna ............................................................................................................. 13
4.4.2 Mammals ............................................................................................................ 14
4.4.3 Amphibians ......................................................................................................... 14
4.5 Prominent Views .................................................................................................................. 18
4.6 Sensitive and Specially Valued Species .................................................................................. 18
4.7 Wildlife Migration Corridors ................................................................................................... 20
4.8 General Ecological Functions ................................................................................................. 20
4.9 Timing of Development in Relation to Ecological Character ..................................................... 20
5.0 Mitigation measures and Recommendations ................................................................................ 21
6.0 Literature Cited and Data Sources .............................................................................................. 24
Appendix A: Vegetation Datasheets
Appendix B: Wetland Datasheets
Appendix C: Photographs
Appendix D: Natural Buffer Mitigation Plan
1
Sanctuary on the Green
Environmental Characterization Study
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Solitaire Homes, LLC. proposes to construct a mixture of single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and
condos on the 41.34 acre site setback from the northwest corner of Laporte Avenue and Taft Hill Road.
This report describes the ecological conditions and functions observed at the Site. Field surveys were
conducted by biologists from Cedar Creek Associates, Inc (Cedar Creek) on July 20-21st and 30th, 2018 to
evaluate site conditions, determine presence of significant plant communities, define the ecological function
of the site and its features, and determine presence of significant wildlife species or habitats. An additional
field survey was conducted in August 2020 to complete additional evaluations requested by the City of
Fort Collins. Section 2.0 provides a Site description, Section 3.0 presents the methodologies used, Section
4.0 contains a summary of findings, and Section 5.0 provides potential mitigation measures and
recommendations. At the rear of the document, Appendix A includes vegetation data sheets, Appendix B
contains wetland datasheets, and Appendix C displays the photo log.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Site is located in northwest Fort Collins, setback from the northwest corner of Laporte Avenue and Taft
Hill Road. The 41.34-acre Site is entirely within the Section 9, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, of the
Sixth Principal Meridian. The home site on the east portion of the Site coordinates are 40.591711°N and
105.115504°W. The non-irrigated Site has a gently sloping elevation that ranges from 5,070 feet on the
west side to 5,050 feet on the east side. The New Mercer Ditch runs through the eastern portion of the
Site. A flood basin runs along the northern property line on the western half of the Site and the western
property line on the eastern half of the Site. Map 1 displays the Site.
2
Map 1: Sanctuary on the Green
Site Overview
150 300
~
z
W Vine Or
L.1p 8'1Re
., ~ .
l ..,.,
if.
"' :z
W Mou nun Av•
~ .. ,ulb«r)' SI
W P,o$pect Rd
600 Feet
3
3.0 METHODS
3.1 Desktop Review
A data review was conducted to gather information and assist in the evaluation of potential natural
biological resources within the property. The data review entailed an evaluation of online resources and
publications to determine the presence or potential occurrence of important natural and biological
resources. This data review included:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Federally Listed and Proposed Endangered, Threatened,
and Candidate Species and Critical Habitat as identified by the USFWS Information, Planning, and
Conservation System (IPaC) Official Species List and Critical Habitat Mapper;
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) protected
species as identified on the IPAC Trust Resources Report;
• The Colorado Natural Heritage Program database statewide species and natural community
tracking list for Larimer County;
• Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Threatened and Endangered Species List;
• Species identified as in need of protection in the City’s Natural Areas Policy Plan;
• The City’s Land Use Code (Article 3, Section 3.4.1);
• The City’s Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map (2000);
• USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); and
• US Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey.
3.2 Site Assessment
The entirety of the Site was traversed on foot to qualitatively evaluate site conditions, determine presence
of significant plant communities, determine presence of significant wildlife species or habitats, and delineate
wetlands. The wetland delineation was conducted following the methodology described in the 1987 Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region. To gain an understanding of the hydrology, several soil
test pits were dug, dominant vegetation was observed, and hydrolologic indicators were noted at each soil
test pit location. Data was recorded on Corps of Engineers data sheets (Appendix A). Photographs were
taken to document site conditions at test pits and data sampling points (Plates 1 through 18).
4
4.0 ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION
4.1 Vegetation
Map 2 displays Fort Collins Natural Habitat & Features Inventory, it shows that there is a non-native upland
plains forest on the very west side of the property. Map 3 shows the vegetation communites encountered
across the entire Site. The entire site is 41.34 acres, with Non-native Herbaceous (pasture/hayland)
comprising the greatest portion with 36.17 acres (87.5%). Table 1 shows the remaining acres are
comprised of Home Site (0.93 acres), Riparian Herbaceous (1.88 acres), Riparian Woodland (0.09 acres),
Upland Woodland (1.79 acres), and wetland (0.48 acres). Descriptions of each community are presented
below.
Non-native Herbaceous
This is a grass and forb dominated ecosystem, comprised mostly of non-native species. At the Site, this
community is found covering almost the entirety of the upland area and is primarily hayed lands. Species
common to this community are highly palatable species for livestock, such as smooth brome (Bromopsis
inermis), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and field bindweed (Convolvulus
arvensis). Scattered non-native trees occur throughout this community on the Site. These areas are
mowed periodically during the growing season to collect the biomass for hay. In general, non-native
herbaceous ecosystems provide diminished ecological function when compared with native ecosystems.
The primarily ecological function of this community is primary production and surface stability from erosion.
Riparian Herbaceous
This is a grass and forb dominated ecosystem found along the banks of a flowing water system. At the
Site, this community is found along the New Mercer Ditch. Species common to this community are fast
growing non-native perennial grasses which stabilize banks, such as smooth brome and common reed grass
(Phragmites australis). In general, non-native herbaceous ecosystems provide diminished ecological
Vegetation Communities
Type Acreage Percent
Home Site 0.93 2.2%
Non-native Herbaceous 36.17 87.5%
Riparian Herbaceous 1.88 4.5%
Riparian Woodland 0.09 0.2%
Upland Woodland 1.79 4.3%
Wetland 0.48 1.2%
TOTAL 41.34 100.0%
Table 1 - Sanctuary on the Green
5
function when compared with native ecosystems. The primarily ecological function of this community is
primary production and bank stability.
Riparian Woodland
This ecosystem is characterized by having both a grass and forb component and woody stratum (tree/shrub
component) found along the banks of a flowing water system. At the Site, this community is found along
the New Mercer Ditch where the plains cottonwoods are found. Species common to this community are
fast growing non-native perennial grasses which stabilize banks, such as smooth brome and common reed
grass. In general, non-native ecosystems provide diminished ecological function when compared with
native ecosystems. The primarily ecological function of this community is primary production and bank
stability. However, the trees can provide cover, nesting, and cooling opportunities for wildlife.
Upland Woodland
This ecosystem is characterized by having both a grass and forb component and woody stratum (tree/shrub
component) found in upland areas. This community was designated in the Fort Collins Natural Habitat and
Features Inventory (Map 2). Species common to this community are non-native trees, such as Siberian
elm (Ulmus pumila) and boxelder (Negundo violaceus) which are considered nuisance species by the City
of Fort Collins, and a mixed grass and forb understory. The primarily ecological function of this community
is wildlife habitat and aesthetic value.
Wetland
This ecosystem is inundated by water, either permanently or seasonally. The primary factor that
distinguishes wetlands from other communities is the characteristic vegetation of aquatic plants, adapted
to the unique hydric soil. There are two wetlands within the property; they are described in Section 4.2.
Typically, wetlands provide water purification and wildlife habitat. The ecosystem function of these
wetlands, particularly the Laporte wetland on the south portion of the project, would be diminished because
the vegetation is primarily non-native grasses.
6
Map 2: Sanctuary on the Green
Natural Habitat & Features Inventory
600 R!et
---=====-----
150 300
7
Map 3: Sanctuary on the Green
Vegetation Communities
150 300
D Approximate Property Boundary
Vegetation Communities
Home Site
Non-native Herb
Riparian Herbaceous
Riparian Woodland
Upland Wood land
600 Feet
8
4.1.1 Noxious Weeds
A total of two noxious weeds were observed throughout the Site and adjacent areas Canada thistle (Cirsium
arvense) and Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Most noxious weeds were associated with the wetter areas,
around wetlands and along New Mercer Ditch. However, noxious weeds were observed sporadically across
the site.
4.1.2 Tree Inventory
The tree inventory was conducted by Ripley Design and City of Fort Collins Forestry Department on October
12, 2018. The inventory evaluated 80 trees/groves and yielded a mitigation requirement of 87 trees, if all
trees are removed. Several species of trees were encountered across the site, including Siberian elm
(Ulmus pumila), Boxelder (Acer negundo), Plains Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Russian Olive (Elaeagnus
angustifolia), White Ash (Fraxinus americana), and Poplar (Populus sp.) along with several other minor tree
species. Most trees were found to be in fair to poor condition with DBH’s (diameter at breast height)
ranging from 2-42 inches. Full details of the tree inventory, including those trees indicated for removal and
the associated tree mitigation plan, can be found in the tree inventory plan (Ripley Design, Project
Development Plan, 2019).
9
4.2 Wetlands
The National Wetlands Inventory depicts one PEM1A wetland along the northern property boundary. A
PEM1A wetland is a freshwater emergent wetland characterized by persistent, herbaceous hydrophytic
vegetation and experiences temporary flooding by surface water during the growing season.
Three wetlands were identified and delineated using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great
Plains Region. Wetland delineation occurred on July 30, 2018. A total of 6 wetland verification points were
sampled with three points qualifying as wetlands (Map 5, Appendix B). Three of the points were located
in the most likely areas to display the characteristics of a wetland – Fort Collins Wetland (Plates 9 and 10)
and Laporte Wetland (Plates 13 and 14) were located in local depressions, and Cherry Wetland (Plates 17
and 18) was located at the confluence of New Mercer Ditch and the Cherry Street drainage channel. Co-
located upland points were also sampled to provide an upland contrast.
Field surveys indicate that wetlands were more extensive than the NWI maps. Fort Collins Wetland was
found to be 0.90 acres, Cherry Wetland was found to be 0.14 acres and Laporte Wetland was found to be
0.39 acres. Delineation datasheets can be found in Appendix B.
Both Fort Collins and Cherry Wetlands provide good ecological function and character as they exhibit life
form (structural). In other words, the vegetation of these two wetlands is comprised of grasses, forbs, and
shrubs/trees. Therefore, these sites provide shading, cover, and nesting opportunity for a variety of wildlife
species. The Laporte Wetland is comprised entirely of grasses and forbs and does not provide important
ecological function to wildlife.
10
.r:
VI ...
·;: lri h
; E'~rmnbry
V)
IJ)
1:7,218
0 0 .05 0 .1
I I I I I I I
0 0.075 0.15
August 10, 2018
Wetlands
I I I I
Cherry St
Pou:Jre
Community
~demy
0 .2mi
I I
0.3 km
V) ,,,
■ Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
0 Estuarine and Marine Wetland
P.oudre
Sch o l D1tlr1cl
0 Freshwater Eme rg en t Wetland
■ Fresh water Forested /Shrub Wetland
0 Freshwater Pond
Map 4: Sanctuary on the Green
National Wetland Inventory
■ Lake
D Other
Riverine
U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and S u art Team,
1Nettands_team@fws.gov
Lila
This map is for gene ral reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife
Service is not responsible for t he accuracy or currentness of the
base data shown on this map . All wetlands re lated data shou ld
be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the
Wetlands Mapper web site.
National Wetlands Inv entory (NW)
This page was prod uced by t he N'v\1 mapper
11
Map 5: Sanctuary on the Green
Wetland Delineations
150 300 600 Feet
12
4.3 Water Conveyance Features
Two features to convey water were identified during field surveys of the Site and nearby vicinity. Within
the Site, the New Mercer Ditch runs along portions of the property’s northern boundaries and continues
south to bisect the parcel. Adjacent to the Site, an unnamed drainage furrow runs parallel to the Site’s
northern boundary, originating from the Fort Collins Wetland and flowing east until it crosses under Taft
Hill Road. Each feature was traversed to evaluate vegetative composition, wetland potential, and other
notable ecological functions identified during field surveys.
The New Mercer Ditch exhibits narrow bands of riparian herbaceous and riparian woodland vegetation
along the inside of the ditch embankments. Common reed grass and smooth brome dominate its majority,
interspersed with sporadic patches of Canada thistle and leafy spurge. Ditch embankments are moderately
incised and exhibit steep slopes that range from 60 to 90 degrees. Despite these characteristics, there is
minimal evidence of bank failure or sediment deposition into the waterway, likely due to the stability
provided by dense perennial grass roots. The ordinary high-water mark is visible approximately 1 foot from
the channel floor, while bank elevations varies between 3 to 6 feet. Given that evidence of periodic
inundation is limited to the engineered channel and flanked by tall and steep banks, hydrology of the ditch
was not determined to be indicative of a wetland. The New Mercer Ditch provides some degree of benefit
as a wildlife migration corridor, which is discussed in more detail in Section 4.7.
The small, unnamed drainage furrow varies from ½ foot to 2 feet in both width and depth. At the time of
the August field evaluation, the Fort Collins Wetland supplied low water flow into the drainage, which was
sustained throughout much of the channel before gradually drying out further south, around 250-300 feet
west of Taft Hill Road. The drainage furrow exhibited moderately to highly incised banks along its majority,
before transitioning to a gentler gradient along the drier reach to the south. The upland herbaceous
vegetation community along both banks consists of almost entirely of Timothy grass (Phleum pratense).
Hydrophytic species were occasionally observed along drainage banks, sporadically interspersed among
upland vegetation species. In these areas, hydrophytic cover and composition was minimal, with dominant
species and a vegetative composition consistent with an upland herbaceous community. For these reasons,
vegetation along the drainage furrow was not determined to be indicative of a wetland. Additionally, post-
field analysis of its delineation indicates that if field surveys had determined that conditions along the
drainage furrow were indicative of a wetland, the required 50-foot buffer for wetlands smaller than 1/3 of
an acre lies outside of the Site boundary and would not be impacted by development activities. The location
of this ditch can be seen in Map 6.
13
4.4 Wildlife
Pedestrian transects to document incidental wildlife occurrence as well as habitat defined point count
transects were implemented to inventory wildlife populations during the summer field effort. Each point
count location was designated by habitat (non-native herbaceous, riparian herbaceous, riparian woodland,
upland woodland, wetland, & ditch) and was observed at a 50m radius for 10 min, recording species,
location and behavior.
Habitat value and wildlife use of the project area is limited by the general lack of woody vegetation,
dominance by non-native species, seasonal mowing, and surrounding developments and roads. Only a
few species are likely to establish resident populations in this non-native grassland parcel. Songbirds such
as European starling, common grackle, and black-billed magpie may also occasionally use non-native
grassland habitat at this site. Urban-adapted species including raccoon, striped skunk, red fox, mourning
dove, and muskrat are also present or have the potential to inhabit this site.
The New Mercer Ditch has limited value as a potential wildlife movement corridor because of the proximity
of residential and other developments along most portions of the ditch to the west and east of the Sanctuary
West property, however, wetland obligate species such as mallard and muskrat were observed utilizing this
feature, and should be given some value as a wildlife corridor.
4.4.1 Avifauna
A total of 19 bird species were observed during the point count surveys and pedestrian transects that were
conducted at the property. Most species are common in urban settings and occupy the shrubs and trees
that are present on the parcel. Seasonal and/or year-round use can be expected by a number of urban
adapted birds including American robin (Turdus migratorius), sparrows, magpies (Pica hudsonia), swallows,
crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), ravens (Corvus corax), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), pigeon
(Columbalivia domestica), grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), jays
(Cyanocitta sp.), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius
phoeniceus). Some ground-nesting species may nest in the tall grasses on the periphery of the property,
however the pasture is routinely mowed, and managed such that many ground nesting avian species would
be precluded from nesting. Canada geese (Branta Canadensis) were observed and may occasionally move
into non-native grassland to seek prey or feed on grass or grass seeds.
Waterfowl likely use the area for foraging and loafing and may use the un-mowed tall grass immediately
surrounding the wetlands for nesting, though the small size of the area and proximity to development
greatly reduces the quality of nesting habitat. This property is not a concentration area for migratory or
nesting waterfowl or shorebirds. The ephemeral nature of the ditch and wetlands make the habitat less
attractive for concentrations of migrating or overwintering shorebirds or waterfowl. The only wetland
14
obligate species that was observed was the common mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and was seen utilizing
the New Mercer ditch as brood rearing habitat.
The site has limited potential to be hunted by most raptors except for urban-adapted species such as
American kestrel, red-tailed hawk and great horned owl, although none were observed. Raptor species
known to occur in the region include turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), northern harrier (Circus circus),
American kestrel (Falco sparverius), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), rough-legged hawk (Buteo
lagopus), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysateos). These species are year-round residents, seasonal visitors,
or migrants, depending on the species. Owl species which could potentially frequent the property include
the barn owl (Tyto alba), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), long-eared owl (Asio otus), and the short-
eared owl (Asio flammeus). Turkey vulture were observed within the vicinity and may utilize the property,
although not for a critical life requirement. A raptor nest survey was implemented on September 3, 2020
but did not result in conclusive findings, a winter survey is needed to observe potential nests and activity
after trees have dropped their leaves. A complete list of all birds encountered during the field survey(s) can
be seen on Table 2.
4.4.2 Mammals
Various small rodents including mice, voles, rats, gophers, ground squirrels, chipmunks and lagomorphs
(Lepus sp, Sylvilagus sp) are expected to utilize the property year round, although few were observed
during pedestrian transects. Prey species are cyclically common, widespread throughout the region, and
are important food sources for raptors and other predators. Other species such as porcupines (Erethizon
dorsatum) and various bats could also frequent the area. Two common bat species that are consistently
found in Fort Collins and roost primarily in trees are hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus) and silver-haired bats
(Lasionycteris noctivagans), although none were observed. The value of the property to mammals is low
due to urban location of the property and the land use of grazing, mowing, and baling the pasture. No big
game species were observed during pedestrian transects, although it is likely that mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus) utilize the area. Three mammals were observed utilizing the property during the field effort,
muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger). There was no
evidence of prairie dogs or prairie dog burrows on the property.
4.4.3 Amphibians
No amphibians were observed on the property, however the wetlands on the northern and southern
portions of the property will likely contain amphibians and wetland reptiles common to the City of Fort
Collins. Locally common riparian species, within suitable habitat in the region, include western chorus frogs
(Pseudacris triseriata), bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), plains spadefoot (Spea bombifrons) and
Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo woodhousei). Common upland reptile species expected on the property would
15
include the bull snake (Pituophis melanoleucas) and garter snake (Thamnophis sp.). Less common upland
species may include the prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), eastern yellow-bellied racer (Coluber
constrictor flaviventris), and plains hog-nosed snake (Heterodon nasicus). The only reptile species observed
on the property was the common garter snake.
Table 2 - Sanctuary on the Green
Observed Wildlife Species List
Common Name Scientific Name
Blackbird, Red-winged Agelaius phoeniceus
Chickadee, Black-capped Poecile atricapillus
Dove, Mourning Zenaida macroura
Finch, House Haemorhous mexicanus
Flicker, Northern Colaptes auratus
Grackel, Common Quiscalus quiscula
Goldfinch, American Spinus tristis
Goose, Canada Branta canadensis
Hummingbird, Broad-tailed Selasphorus platycercus
Jay, Blue Cyanocitta cristata
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Nighthawk, Common Chordeiles minor
Robin, American Turdus migratorius
Sparrow, Song Melospiza melodia
Starling, European Sturnus vulgaris
Swallow, Barn Hirundo rustica
Vulture, Turkey Cathartes aura
Woodpecker, Hairy Leuconotopicus villosus
Wren, House Troglodytes aedon
Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus
Racoon Procyon lotor
Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger
Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis
Mammals
Bird
Reptiles
16
0
Map 6: Sanctuary on the Green
Water Conveyance
150 300 600 Feet
pproximate Property Boundary
ater Conveyance
N
w❖•
17
Map 6: Sanctuary on the Green
Wildlife Survey
150 300
Legend
• Wildlife Survey Points
D Approxima te Property Bound ary
Vegetation Communities
Home Site
Non-native Herb
Riparian H erbaceous
Riparian Woodland
Upland Woodland
Wetland
18
4.5 Prominent Views
Views across the Site to the east are met with Taft Hill Road and non-native herbaceous fields and low
density housing before encountering riparian woodland around the ditch east of Taft Hill Road and to the
north and south views across the Site views are met with high density residential housing. The prominent
across the Site is to the west where there is high density housing and eventually the Rocky Mountains can
be seen.
4.6 Sensitive and Specially Valued Species
A current list of federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, and designated critical
habitat that may occur within the boundary of the Site and/or may be affected by the proposed
development was obtained from the USFWS IPaC website (2018). Table 3 lists the species and their
designated and proposed critical habitats. No USFWS designated critical habitat occurs in or near the Site.
19
Common Name Scientific Name
North Platte, South Platte, and Laramie River Basin Species
Least Tern Sterna antillarum E Sparsely vegetated sandbars on large rivers and sand/gravel pits.No No large rivers on project site.No potential impact
Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus E Large, free-flowing, warm-water, and turbid rivers with a diverse assemblage of
physical habitats.No No large rivers on project site.No potential impact
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T Sandy beaches, sandflats, dredge islands, and drained river floodplains.No No sand beaches or flats on the project site. No potential impact
Western Prairie Fringed
Orchid Platanthera praeclara T
Tall grass prairie on unplowed, calcareous prairies, and sedge meadows.
Upstream depletions to the Platte River system in Wyoming may affect the
species in NE.
No No tall grass praire on project site. No potential impact
Whooping Crane Grus americana E Wetlands, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet meadows and rivers, and
agricultural fields.No No water depletion associated with the
project.No potential impact
Mammals
Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis T Moist boreal/subalpine forests in the W. US with cold, snowy winters and a high-
density snowshoe hare prey base.No No dense forests with snowshoe hare on
project site.No potential impact
North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus PT Deep, persistent, and reliable snow cover.No No deep persistent snow on project site. No potential impact
Preble's Meadow Jumping
Mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei T Lush vegetation along watercourses or herbaceous understories in wooded areas
near water.No No water depletion associated with the
project. No hibernacula on project site.No potential impact
Birds
Mexican Spotted Owl Stri occidentalis lucida T
Nesting/roosting habitat typically occurs either in well- structured forests with
high canopy cover, large trees, and other late seral characteristics, or in steep
and narrow rocky canyons formed by parallel cliffs with numerous caves and/or
ledges within specific geological formations.
No No late seral forests in steep canyons on the
project site. No potential impact
Fish
Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii
stomias T This species inhabits cold water streams and lakes with
adequate stream spawning habitat during spring.No No spawning habitat associated with ditches. No potential impact
Insects
Arapahoe Snowfly Arsapnia arapahoe C Stoneflies are primarily associated with clean, cool, running waters.No No water depletion associated with the
project. No potential impact
Flowering Plants
Colorado Butterfly Plant Gaura neomexicana v.
coloradensis T
An early successional plant (although probably not a pioneer) adapted to use
stream channel sites that are periodically disturbed. It occurs on subirrigated,
alluvial soils on level or slightly sloping floodplains and drainage channels.
No No subirrigated alluvial soils on site. No water
depletion associated with the project. No potential impact
North Park Phacelia Phacelia formosula E The species is limited to eroded soil outcrops composed of barren exposures of
the Coalmont Formation, a coal- bearing substrate in North Park CO.No No Coalmont Formation on the project.No potential impact
Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis T Seasonally moist soils and wet meadows of drainages below 7000' elevation.No No wetmeadows on the project. No water
depletion associated with the project. No potential impact
Source: USFWS 2018
E = Federally Endangered, T = Federally Threatened, PT = Proposed Threatened, C = Candidate
Explanation Determination
Special Status Species with Potential to Occur on the Site
Species
Table 3 Sanctuary on the Green
Federal
Status Habitat Habitat
Present?
20
4.7 Wildlife Migration Corridors
The Site is surrounded by residential development to the north, south, and west, with pasture/hayland
fields to the east. It is highly unlikely that the Site serves as a migration corridor for sensitive, unique, or
regionally protected wildlife. However, New Mercer Ditch does provide some migratory benefit to resident
urban-adapted wildlife such as red foxes, raccoons, coyotes, and skunks, and it may provide temporary
stopover habitat for migrating birds. The ditch originates at the Cache la Poudre River near Laporte and
terminates at Mail Creek southeast of the project area. Much of the canal passes through developed
portions of Fort Collins, and in most areas, development, and associated landscaping approaches up to the
top edge of the canal. The continuity of the canal is further compromised by numerous culverted road
crossings.
4.8 General Ecological Functions
The general ecological functions provided by the Site have been reduced by multiple human-induced
stressors including agricultural (hay) production, suburban development, and anthropogenic uses of the
site, such as recreation from adjacent community member. Both riparian and associated habitats along
New Mercer Ditch provide shading, cover, and nesting opportunity for a variety of wildlife species, flood
abatement, water infiltration, and aesthetic appeal. The upland woodland could provide shading, cover,
and nesting opportunities for a variety of wildlife species.
4.9 Timing of Development in Relation to Ecological Character
The MBTA specifically protects migratory birds and their nests from possession, sale, purchase, barter,
transport, import, export, and take. The regulatory definition of take (50 CFR 10.12) means to pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt these actions.
No trees shall be removed during the songbird nesting season (February 1 to July 31) without first having
a professional ecologist or wildlife biologist complete a nesting survey to identify any active nests existing
on the project site. If active nests are found, the city environmental planner will determine whether
additional restrictions on tree removal and construction apply.
21
5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite the diminished ecological function due to the non-naïve species and history of use on the Site,
mitigation measures and buffer distances should be used to improve or maintain ecological function of
natural features on the Site.
Trees
A variety of trees are scattered throughout the Site and were found to be mostly in poor or fair condition
by Fort Collins Forestry department during the tree survey on October 12, 2018. In accordance with the
Tree Inventory Plans (Ripley Design, Project Development Plan, 2019), mitigation trees will be planted in
addition to the 1:1 acreage replacement of upland woodland groves that are disturbed during development.
The following tree protection conditions apply:
1. Trees to be removed are shown on Tree Inventory Plans. All others shall remain and be protected
in place.
2. Within the drip line of any protected existing tree, there shall be no cut or fill over a four-inch depth
unless a qualified arborist or forester has evaluated and approved the disturbance.
3. All protected existing trees shall be pruned to the City of Fort Collins forestry standards. Tree
pruning and removal shall be performed by a business that holds a current City of Fort Collins
arborist license where required by code.
4. Prior to and during construction, barriers shall be erected around all protected existing trees with
such barriers to be of orange fencing a minimum of four (4) feet in height, secured with metal t-
posts, no closer than six (6) feet from the trunk or one-half (½) of the drip line, whichever is
greater. There shall be no storage or movement of equipment, material, debris or fill within the
fenced tree protection zone.
5. During the construction stage of development, the applicant shall prevent the cleaning of
equipment or material or the storage and disposal of waste material such as paints, oils, solvents,
asphalt, concrete, motor oil or any other material harmful to the life of a tree within the drip line
of any protected tree or group of trees.
6. No damaging attachment, wires, signs or permits may be fastened to any protected tree.
7. Large property areas containing protected trees and separated from construction or land clearing
areas, road rights-of-way and utility easements may be "ribboned off," rather than erecting
protective fencing around each tree as required in subsection (g)(3) above. This may be
accomplished by placing metal t-post stakes a maximum of fifty (50) feet apart and tying ribbon
or rope from stake-to-stake along the outside perimeters of such areas being cleared.
8. The installation of utilities, irrigation lines or any underground fixture requiring excavation deeper
than six (6) inches shall be accomplished by boring under the root system of protected existing
---
22
trees at a minimum depth of twenty-four (24) inches. The auger distance is established from the
face of the tree (outer bark) and is scaled from tree diameter at breast height as described in the
tree plan.
9. No trees shall be removed during the songbird nesting season (February 1 to July 31) without first
having a professional ecologist or wildlife biologist complete a nesting survey to identify any active
nests existing on the project site. If active nests are found, the city environmental planner will
determine whether additional restrictions on tree removal and construction apply.
Wetlands
There were three delineated wetlands encountered onsite or immediately adjacent (Fort Collins, Cherry,
and Laporte). The Fort Collins wetland is the biggest at 0.90 acres and located offsite immediately to the
north of the property line and east of New Mercer Ditch. No significant use by waterfowl or shorebirds was
observed, therefore, the buffer zone standard of 100 feet applies. The Cherry wetland is 0.14 acres and
located between New Mercer Ditch and Cherry Street. Since it is less than 1/3 of an acre, the buffer zone
standard of 50 feet applies. Finally, the onsite portion of the Laporte wetland is 0.39 acres, but extends
onto private land to the east and west. The portion of this wetland on the Site is greater than 1/3 of an
acre and no significant use by waterfowl or shorebirds was observed, therefore, the buffer zone standard
of 100 feet applies. The acreage created by wetland buffers should be maintained to:
1. Preserve or enhance the ecological character or function and wildlife use of the natural habitat
or feature and to minimize or adequately mitigate the foreseeable impacts of development.
2. Preserve or enhance the existence of wildlife movement corridors between natural habitats and
features, both within and adjacent to the site.
3. Designed to enhance the natural ecological characteristics of the site. If existing landscaping
within the buffer zone is determined by the decision maker to be incompatible with the purposes
of the buffer zone, then the applicant shall undertake restoration and mitigation measures such
as regrading and/or the replanting of native vegetation.
4. Designed to provide appropriate human access to natural habitats and features and their
associated buffer zones in order to serve recreation purposes, provided that such access is
compatible with the ecological character or wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature.
Wildlife Corridor
New Mercer Ditch has been identified as an irrigation ditch that serves as a wildlife corridor. Therefore,
the buffer zone standard of 50 feet applies. The acreage created by wildlife corridor buffers should be
maintained to the objectives presented in the wetland section.
23
Raptor Nest Survey
A winter raptor nest survey will be completed to determine if there are active nests in the vicinity of the
project. Winter surveys are the best approach to be able to observe nests and activity prior to leaf-out in
the trees. If nests are found, Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal
Restrictions for Colorado Raptors (2020) would apply.
24
6.0 LITERATURE CITED AND DATA SOURCES
City of Fort Collins. 2000. Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Threatened and Endangered Species List.
https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx. Accessed 12/17/2018.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web
Soil Survey. Available online at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed 12/17/2018.
USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains
(Version 2.0).
US Fish and Wildlife Service. Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC).
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed 12/17/2018.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper.
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed 12/17/2018.
Appendix A
Vegetation Data Sheets
1
Tree %
Shrub %
Forb %
Grass %ExcellentGoodFairPoorN/A4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X List species:
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
NoneMinorModerateMajorN/AExcellentGoodFairPoorN/A4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
Feet
Intermittent Ephemeral Perennial N/A
Bedrock Boulders Riprap Gravel
Sand Silt/Clay Concrete N/A
Possible Ecosystem Services:
Other Comments, including wildlife species seen:
Total Vegetation Cover
by StrataPollinators?
E. Direct Human Impacts
F: Indirect Human Impacts
MAINTENANCE
QUALITATIVE
PARAMETERS
3 2
M. Root Density (Percent)
N. Surface Protection (Percent)
O. Bank Angle (Degrees)
L. Root Depth (Feet)
Q. Flow Regime
B. Wildlife Habitat
C. Overall Aesthetic
D. Ecological Connectivity
Sustainability
B1. Prairie Dog Habitat
B2. Species of Concern
A. Biodiversity
A2. Habitat Diversity
A1. Plant Diversity
LANDSCAPE TYPOLOGY FIELD DATA SHEET
Noxious Weeds
COMMENTS
%
%
%
%
Landscape Description:
2
GENERAL QUALITATIVE
PARAMETERS
21
Dominant Species
2
K. Opportunities for Restoration
(Describe in comments)Y / N
Total Score
I. Annual / Invasive Weed
Population Description 4 3 2 1 X
J. Ground Disturbance 4 3 2 1
1
X
R. Bank Material (Type)
STREAM
CHARACTERISTICS
(Stream Areas Only)
X1G. Noxious Weed Population
Description 4
P. Bank Height
XH. Visual Water Quality (excluding
upland typologies)4 3
Habitat Subtype:
Date:Project:
Typology:Hydrologic System (riparian &
surface water types):
Observer:Sample ID:Sanctuary on the Green Jesse Dillon 01 7/30/18
Non-native Herbaceous None None
Mowed hay fields
20
80 Smooth Brome Western Wheatgrass
Alfalfa
Bindweed
Canada Thistle
No habitat diverisity, the landscaped in homogenous
None
None
Typical agricultural field, limited lifeformand species diversity
Surrounded by sub-urban development, adjacent to New Mercer Ditch
Various user trails transverse this community
Scattered bindweed and Canada thistle
Noise from adjacent suburban development, roads
Only ground disturbance associated with homesite
Potential to impove ecological character with native species
Primary Production, Erosion Protection
22/36
Very little plant diversity, community dominated by aggressive grasses
1
Tree %
Shrub %
Forb %
Grass %ExcellentGoodFairPoorN/A4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X List species:
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
NoneMinorModerateMajorN/AExcellentGoodFairPoorN/A4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
Feet
Intermittent Ephemeral Perennial N/A
Bedrock Boulders Riprap Gravel
Sand Silt/Clay Concrete N/A
Possible Ecosystem Services:
Other Comments, including wildlife species seen:
Total Vegetation Cover
by StrataPollinators?
E. Direct Human Impacts
F: Indirect Human Impacts
MAINTENANCE
QUALITATIVE
PARAMETERS
3 2
M. Root Density (Percent)
N. Surface Protection (Percent)
O. Bank Angle (Degrees)
L. Root Depth (Feet)
Q. Flow Regime
B. Wildlife Habitat
C. Overall Aesthetic
D. Ecological Connectivity
Sustainability
B1. Prairie Dog Habitat
B2. Species of Concern
A. Biodiversity
A2. Habitat Diversity
A1. Plant Diversity
LANDSCAPE TYPOLOGY FIELD DATA SHEET
Noxious Weeds
COMMENTS
%
%
%
%
Landscape Description:
2
GENERAL QUALITATIVE
PARAMETERS
21
Dominant Species
2
K. Opportunities for Restoration
(Describe in comments)Y / N
Total Score
I. Annual / Invasive Weed
Population Description 4 3 2 1 X
J. Ground Disturbance 4 3 2 1
1
X
R. Bank Material (Type)
STREAM
CHARACTERISTICS
(Stream Areas Only)
X1G. Noxious Weed Population
Description 4
P. Bank Height
XH. Visual Water Quality (excluding
upland typologies)4 3
Habitat Subtype:
Date:Project:
Typology:Hydrologic System (riparian &
surface water types):
Observer:Sample ID:Sanctuary on the Green Jesse Dillon 7/30/18
None
None
None
Noise from adjacent suburban development, roads
Potential to impove ecological character with native species
None
02
Riparian Herbaceous New Mercer Ditch
Grass dominated communities adjacent to New Mercer Ditch
10
90 Reed Grass Smooth Brome
Canada Thistle
Leafy Spurge
Typical grass dominated banks, limited lifeform and species diversity
Banks provide some habitat diverisity
Surrounded by suburban development, but New Mercer Ditch is a wildlife corridor
Various user trails transverse this community, ditch maintainance
Canada thistle common, leafy spurge scattered
Good plant cover on banks
Good plant cover on banks
Good plant cover on banks
Slope is between 2:1 and 1:1 (27 degrees to 45 degrees)
0
Primary Production, Bank Stability
Ground disturbance associated with trails and maintenance access
26/40
Very little plant diversity, community dominated by aggressive grasses
1
Tree %
Shrub %
Forb %
Grass %ExcellentGoodFairPoorN/A4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X List species:
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
NoneMinorModerateMajorN/AExcellentGoodFairPoorN/A4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
Feet
Intermittent Ephemeral Perennial N/A
Bedrock Boulders Riprap Gravel
Sand Silt/Clay Concrete N/A
Possible Ecosystem Services:
Other Comments, including wildlife species seen:
Total Vegetation Cover
by StrataPollinators?
E. Direct Human Impacts
F: Indirect Human Impacts
MAINTENANCE
QUALITATIVE
PARAMETERS
3 2
M. Root Density (Percent)
N. Surface Protection (Percent)
O. Bank Angle (Degrees)
L. Root Depth (Feet)
Q. Flow Regime
B. Wildlife Habitat
C. Overall Aesthetic
D. Ecological Connectivity
Sustainability
B1. Prairie Dog Habitat
B2. Species of Concern
A. Biodiversity
A2. Habitat Diversity
A1. Plant Diversity
LANDSCAPE TYPOLOGY FIELD DATA SHEET
Noxious Weeds
COMMENTS
%
%
%
%
Landscape Description:
2
GENERAL QUALITATIVE
PARAMETERS
21
Dominant Species
2
K. Opportunities for Restoration
(Describe in comments)Y / N
Total Score
I. Annual / Invasive Weed
Population Description 4 3 2 1 X
J. Ground Disturbance 4 3 2 1
1
X
R. Bank Material (Type)
STREAM
CHARACTERISTICS
(Stream Areas Only)
X1G. Noxious Weed Population
Description 4
P. Bank Height
XH. Visual Water Quality (excluding
upland typologies)4 3
Habitat Subtype:
Date:Project:
Typology:Hydrologic System (riparian &
surface water types):
Observer:Sample ID:Sanctuary on the Green Jesse Dillon 7/30/18
None
None
None
Noise from adjacent suburban development, roads
Potential to impove ecological character with native species
None
New Mercer Ditch
10
90 Reed Grass Smooth Brome
Canada Thistle
Surrounded by suburban development, but New Mercer Ditch is a wildlife corridor
Various user trails transverse this community, ditch maintainance
Good plant cover on banks
Good plant cover on banks
Good plant cover on banks
Slope is between 2:1 and 1:1 (27 degrees to 45 degrees)
0
Primary Production, Bank Stability
40 Plains cottonwood
Banks and tree cover provide some habitat diverisity
Typical grass dominated banks, limited lifeform and species diversity, tree cover
Canada thistle common
Ground disturbance associated with trails and maintenance access
The trees can provide cover, nesting, and cooling opportunities for wildlife
28/40
Very little plant diversity, community dominated by aggressive grasses
Grass / tree dominated communities adjacent to New Mercer Ditch
Riparian Woodland
03
1
Tree %
Shrub %
Forb %
Grass %ExcellentGoodFairPoorN/A4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X List species:
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
NoneMinorModerateMajorN/AExcellentGoodFairPoorN/A4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
4 3 2 1 X
Feet
Intermittent Ephemeral Perennial N/A
Bedrock Boulders Riprap Gravel
Sand Silt/Clay Concrete N/A
Possible Ecosystem Services:
Other Comments, including wildlife species seen:
Total Vegetation Cover
by StrataPollinators?
E. Direct Human Impacts
F: Indirect Human Impacts
MAINTENANCE
QUALITATIVE
PARAMETERS
3 2
M. Root Density (Percent)
N. Surface Protection (Percent)
O. Bank Angle (Degrees)
L. Root Depth (Feet)
Q. Flow Regime
B. Wildlife Habitat
C. Overall Aesthetic
D. Ecological Connectivity
Sustainability
B1. Prairie Dog Habitat
B2. Species of Concern
A. Biodiversity
A2. Habitat Diversity
A1. Plant Diversity
LANDSCAPE TYPOLOGY FIELD DATA SHEET
Noxious Weeds
COMMENTS
%
%
%
%
Landscape Description:
2
GENERAL QUALITATIVE
PARAMETERS
21
Dominant Species
2
K. Opportunities for Restoration
(Describe in comments)Y / N
Total Score
I. Annual / Invasive Weed
Population Description 4 3 2 1 X
J. Ground Disturbance 4 3 2 1
1
X
R. Bank Material (Type)
STREAM
CHARACTERISTICS
(Stream Areas Only)
X1G. Noxious Weed Population
Description 4
P. Bank Height
XH. Visual Water Quality (excluding
upland typologies)4 3
Habitat Subtype:
Date:Project:
Typology:Hydrologic System (riparian &
surface water types):
Observer:Sample ID:Sanctuary on the Green Jesse Dillon 7/30/18
None
None
None
Noise from adjacent suburban development, roads
Potential to impove ecological character with native species
None
10
60
10 various
various
Siberian Elm Boxelder
Marginal plant diversity, non-native nuisance trees
Tree cover provides habitat diverisity
There is lifeform and species diversity, but non-natives
Tree dominated upland communities
Upland Woodland
04
Surrounded by suburban development, adjacent to New Mercer Ditch
Camp found in the upland woodland
Canada thistle scattered
Ground disturbance associated with camp
The trees can provide cover, nesting, and cooling opportunities for wildlife
23/36
Appendix B
Wetland Data Sheets
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 FAC−): (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:
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:
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 FAC−): (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:
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:
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 FAC−): (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:
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:
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 FAC−): (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:
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:
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 FAC−): (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:
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:
Appendix C
Photographs
Plate 1 – New Mercer Ditch – Riparian Woodland Plate 2 – New Mercer Ditch – Riparian
Herbaceous
Plate 3 – Non-native Herbaceous Plate 4 - Non-native Herbaceous
Sanctuary on the Green Photos
Plate 5 – Fort Collins Wetland Plate 6 – Laporte Wetland
Plate 7 – Upland Woodland Plate 8 – Upland Woodland
Sanctuary on the Green Photos
Plate 9 – Fort Collins Wetland
Plate 10 – Fort Collins Wetland Soil Core
Fort Collins Wetland Photos
Plate 11 – Fort Collins Co-located Upland
Plate 12 – Fort Collins Upland Soil Core
Fort Collins Co-located Upland Photos
Plate 13 – Laporte Wetland
Plate 14 – Laporte Wetland Soil Core
LaporteWetland Photos
Plate 15 – Laporte Co-located Upland
Plate 16 – Laporte Upland Soil Core
Laporte Co-located Upland Photos
Plate 17 – Cherry Wetland
Plate 18 – Cherry Wetland Soil Core
LaporteWetland Photos
Appendix D
Natural Buffer Mitigation Plan
Natural Buffer Mitigation Plan
The project creates Natural Buffers associated with New Mercer Ditch and established wetlands found
on the Site. In accordance with City of Fort Collins guidelines, these Natural Buffers should be
managed to:
1. Preserve or enhance the ecological character or function and wildlife use of the natural
habitat or feature and to minimize or adequately mitigate the foreseeable impacts of
development.
2. Preserve or enhance the existence of wildlife movement corridors between natural habitats
and features, both within and adjacent to the site.
3. Designed to enhance the natural ecological characteristics of the site. If existing
landscaping within the buffer zone is determined by the decision maker to be incompatible
with the purposes of the buffer zone, then the applicant shall undertake restoration and
mitigation measures such as regrading and/or the replanting of native vegetation.
4. Designed to provide appropriate human access to natural habitats and features and their
associated buffer zones in order to serve recreation purposes, provided that such access is
compatible with the ecological character or wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature.
Essentially, this plan aims to define an approach and provide specific treatments to improve ecological
function and enhance the ecological characteristics of the Natural Buffers. Specifically, this plan will
attempt to increase both species and structural diversity of the vegetation communities using native,
drought tolerant species. Wetlands are not proposed to be improved as part of this plan, this plan
strictly addresses the Natural Buffers associated with the wetlands and New Mercer Ditch.
Step 1: Creating Opportunity or Niches
Vegetation currently inhabiting the Natural Buffers is primarily aggressive, non-native perennial
grasses. These species tend to dominate and ecosystem by outcompeting minor, desirable species.
Therefore, creating opportunities for a variety of native species to establish is vital. Some method of
vegetation control must be used on these aggressive grasses. Typically, mechanical or chemical
control is used. Mechanical control entails scraping or plowing to increase bare ground exposure
which will serve as a seedbed / planting medium. Chemical control entails the use of herbicide to
diminish dominance of perennial grasses. If chemical control is selected, only City of Fort Collins
approved herbicide should be used by a qualified contractor, in accordance with the label.
Step 2: Soil Preparation
The soil surface should be optimized for seeding or planting. An agronomic assessment should be
implemented to evaluate the chemical and physical properties of the soil. This information can be
used to determine whether soil amendments would benefit the establishing plant communities and
allow for optimization of the seed mix to soil conditions. Prior to seeding the soil surface should be
loose, allowing for good soil/seed contact. A disc harrow prior to seeding is best.
Step 3: Seeding and Planting
The species used should be native and suitable to the soil of the Natural Buffers. Seed mixes should
be designed to facilitate growth of appropriate and sustainable species. An initial seed mix is
presented below but may be changed based on the agronomic assessment results. Seeding can be
accomplished using both broadcasting and drilling techniques, following final contouring and
amendment application/incorporation, if appropriate. If seed is broadcast, a light disc harrowing
perpendicular to the flow of energy (wind and/or water) should immediately follow seeding to
increase seed to soil contact and provide some protection from wind or water erosion and granivory.
If seed is drilled, final drilling pass must occur on the contour, to create subtle ridges perpendicular to
the flow of energy. The following guidelines are provided by the City of Fort Collins:
1. Prepare soil as necessary and appropriate for native seed mix species through aeration and
addition of amendments, then seed in two directions to distribute seed evenly over entire area.
Drill seed all indicated areas as soon as possible after completion of grading operations.
2. If changes are to be made to seed mix based on site conditions then approval must be provided
by a city Environmental Planner.
3. Appropriate native seeding equipment will be used (standard turf seeding equipment or
agriculture equipment shall not be used).
4. Drill seed application recommended per specified application rate to no more than ½ inch depth
(or appropriate depth for selected species). For broadcast seeding instead of drill seeding
method double specified application rate.
5. After seeding the area shall be covered with crimped straw, jute mesh, or other appropriate
methods.
Planting of native shrubs should occur to provide structural diversity. Species to be used should be
approved by a city Environmental Planner. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the following
native shrubs, sub-shrubs, and agavoids are found on these soils and presumably would be
appropriate to plant:
• Fourwing Saltbush (Atriplex canescens)
• Rubber Rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa ssp. nauseosa var. nauseosa)
• Winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata)
• Prairie Sagewort (Artemisia frigida)
• Soapweed Yucca (Yucca glauca)
Shrubs should be planted using industry Best Management Practices.
Step 4: Maintenance and Management
Maintenance and management activities should be implemented to ensure success of the ecological
restoration project. After seeding the area shall be covered with crimped straw, jute mesh, or other
appropriate soil surface stabilization methods. Temporary irrigation will be used until seed is
established; an irrigation plan will be prepared prior to seeding. The irrigation system for seeded
areas shall be fully operational at the time of seeding and shall ensure 100% head-to-head coverage
over all seeded areas. A weed management plan should be implemented to ensure that weeds are
properly managed before, during, and after seeding activities. Overall, the contractor shall monitor
seeded area for proper irrigation, erosion control, germination and reseeding as needed to establish
cover.
Step 5: Completion
Restored vegetation communities will be considered established when seventy percent vegetative
cover is reached with no larger than one foot square bare spots and/or until deemed established by
city planning services and erosion control. The developer and/or landscape contractor is responsible
for adequate seedling coverage and growth at the time of final stabilization, as defined by state and
local agencies. If final stabilization is not achieved to the satisfaction of the agency, the developer
and/or landscape contractor shall be responsible for additional corrective measures to satisfy final
vegetative requirements for closeout.