HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORE SPACES AT TRILBY & COLLEGE - PDP220009 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ECS REPORT
06/06/2022
............................................................................................................................................ 3
.............................................................................................................................. 3
................................................................................................................................. 3
......................................................................................................................................... 4
.......................................................................................................................................................... 5
................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
........................................................................................................................................................................ 8
....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
......................................................................................................... 8
............................................................................................................................................ 9
............................................................................................................................................. 10
.................................................................................. 10
............................................................................................................... 10
............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
.............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
.................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
.......................... 13
.......................................................................................................................................................................... 13
................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
................................................................................................................................... 14
.................................................................................................................................................................... 15
..................................................................................................................................................... 15
................................................................................................................................ 16
....................................................................... 17
................................................................................ 18
.............................................................................................................. 24
............................................... 25
.......................................................................................................... 25
This report constitutes the Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) required for the proposed development of Core
Spaces Duplex and Townhome development within the General Commercial (CG) zone district in the City of Fort Collins.
This ECS report is provided in association with a conceptual design (Appendix D) for the 50’ Natural Habitat Buffer Zone
(NHBZ) and wetland mitigation required for this development. This ECS was completed by AloTerra Restoration Services
to address requirements set forth in Article 3, section 3.4.1 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
The Core Spaces Duplex and Townhome development (the Project) includes the development of 242 dwelling units, with
42 two-story two-family dwellings and 200 two to three-story single-family townhomes, and a 6,500 square foot
community center with pool (Figure 1). Most recently, this site was used to graze horses and cattle. Several species of
mature trees exist on site, including both native and introduced species, that provide corridor habitat for a variety of
wildlife, which will need to be included in mitigation efforts.
Figure 1. Property map showing conceptual site plan developed by JR Engineering.
The approximately 38-acre property is located within the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The northern
border of the property is bordered by Skyway Drive and the Storage Star Facility, Highway 287 borders the eastern part
of the property, to the south West Trilby Road, and to the west Foothills Gateway Inc. and the Skyview South subdivision
(Figure 2). The southeastern corner of the property is also bordered by Ziggis Coffee and Waypoint Church.
The center of the property lies approximately at 40.498552 N and -105.079374 W.
Figure 2. Project location.
In fulfillment of the ECS requirements set forth in Article 3, section 3.4.1 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code,
AloTerra staff acquired desktop data and conducted field surveys in support of our characterization of existing ecological
and wildlife conditions, as well as other natural features occurring on the site.
Ecological Field Assessment: Week of April 18th, 2022
Wildlife Field Review: April 20th, 2022
Desktop analysis included reviews and interpretations of aerial imagery, assessment of regional drainage patterns, IPAC
database review (USFWS), groundwater conditions, and location of nearby natural areas. Field assessments included
qualitative rapid assessments of native plant communities, weed populations, wetland and riparian areas, wildlife
habitat conditions, and indicators of current wildlife occupation. In addition, a formal wetland delineation was
performed (Appendices A and B). The rapid assessment of vegetation was performed to compile a list of dominant and
co-dominant species, and species present in each community at a lower cover. For the purposes of this study, a plant
was considered dominant or co-dominant if it’s relative cover is greater than approximately 20%. Due to the timing of
the vegetation survey, there may be several species present on site that, due to their phenological stage, were not
readily observable at the time of this survey. However, based on general disturbed site conditions, and the presence of
above ground features of the dominant species that are present, we are confident that this survey captured the species
that together represent at least 90% of the above ground biomass of the site.
The results of the field and desktop assessments are described below, with the associated natural features represented
in Figure 3. Approximately 99% of the project site is characterized as disturbed upland, with less than 1% of the site
comprised of wetland and riparian communities in a degraded state or dominated by understories of exotic plants.
Figure 3. Mapped natural features within Project boundary.
From a historical perspective, prior to modern development, we believe the project site to have been dominated by
short-grass prairie within the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion (level III ecoregion). The Project site previously had
forested/shrub riparian, palustrine emergent wetlands, and riverine wetland features (Figure 4); however, the previous
landowner eliminated these areas from unknown land use practices.
Figure 4. Historic wetlands from the National Wetlands Inventory within the Project boundary.
Currently, the upland areas are dominated by non-native weeds and soils that have been continually disturbed (Figure 5,
Table 1). The wetland and associated riparian areas are of low native species diversity, low community complexity, and
low structural diversity. Several mature cottonwood trees exist on site, along with Russian olive and Siberian elm. While
structural and biological diversity is low, this area is still an important corridor habitat for a variety of wildlife (Appendix
C).
Soils are generally loam, clay loam, and clay (Table 1). The greatest habitat features include the wetland community and
mature trees that exist on site.
Figure 5. Existing soil types within the Project boundary.
Table 1. Soil type descriptions.
Soil Type Map
Symbol Slope Profile Parent Material Drainage
Class
Depth to
Water Table
Hydric
Soil
Fort Collins
Loam
(1.3 ac)
35 0-3% 0-4”: Loam
4-9”: Clay loam
9-16”: Clay loam
16-29”: Loam
29-80”: Loam
Pleistocene or older
alluvium/eolian deposits
Well
drained
>80” No
Fort Collins
Loam
(0.6 ac)
36 3-5% 0-5”: Loam
5-8”: Clay loam
8-18”: Clay loam
18-24”: Loam
24-84”: Loam
Pleistocene or older
alluvium/eolian deposits
Well
drained
>80” No
Kim Loam
(11.2 ac)
54 3-5% 0-7”: Loam
7-60”: Clay loam
Mixed alluvium Well
drained
>80” No
Kim-Thedalund
Loams
(19.6 ac)
56 3-
15%
0-7”: Loam
7-60”: Clay loam
Mixed alluvium Well
drained
>80” No
Soil Type Map
Symbol Slope Profile Parent Material Drainage
Class
Depth to
Water Table
Hydric
Soil
Longmont Clay
(4.5 ac)
63 0-3% 0-60”: Clay Clayey alluvium derived
from shale
Poorly
drained
>80” No
Midway Clay
Loam
(0.53 ac)
65 5-
25%
0-4”: Clay loam
4-19”: Clay
19-23”:
Weathered
bedrock
Material weathered from
shale
Well
drained
>80” No
Wiley Silt Loam
(0.03 ac)
119 3-5% 0-6”: Silt loam
6-15”: Silt loam
15-60”: Silt loam
Uniform eolian deposits Well
drained
>80” No
Existing infrastructure predominately includes culverts, fencing, and retention ponds outside of the property
boundaries. Other existing infrastructure can be found in the JR Engineering plan set.
The Project site is generally flat, with a maximum slope of approximately 6%.
In this section we provide a checklist of required features as outlined in the ECS. No significant native plant communities
were documented on the site apart from wetland vegetation and mature cottonwood trees. The plant cover in the
remainder of the site is dominated by non-native species with low structural and biological diversity.
Natural Communities or Habitats
Aquatic: no; Wetland and wet meadow: yes; Native grassland: no;
Riparian forest: no; Urban plains forest: no; Riparian shrubland: no; Foothills forest: no;
Foothills shrubland: no
Special Features (enter yes/no, indicate on map, and describe details below):
Significant remnants of native plant communities: no.
Based on field conditions and analysis of aerial imagery, it is apparent no significant remnant native plant
communities exist on site.
Areas of significant geological or paleontological interest: not likely.
A cultural and historical resources survey was not conducted as part of this assessment. However, based on the
history of the site, it is unlikely the site harbors significant cultural or historical resources.
Any prominent views from or across the site? no.
No significant views can be seen, as much of the site is surrounded by urban developments.
The pattern, species and location of any significant native trees and other native site vegetation.
The only significant native vegetation occurring on the Project site includes small patches of coyote willow (Salix
exigua) and baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and several mature cottonwood trees.
Pattern, species, and location of any significant non-native trees.
Russian olive (Eleaganus angustifolia) and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) trees can be found throughout the property.
Special habitat features
The special habitat features on the project site include the wetlands; however, the quality of these wetlands are of
moderate to poor condition and function.
The subsections below outline the conditions of native habitats existing on site: wetlands, disturbed uplands, and ditch
communities. Refer to Figure 3 for locations of these features.
AloTerra performed a formal wetland delineation on site (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region, Version 2.0, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) and a review of
other aquatic features such as ponds and streams. Two wetland types were identified: palustrine scrub shrub and
palustrine emergent. There were no Original High-Water Mark (OHWM) indicators within the ditch communities
onsite, therefore an OHWM survey was not performed.
Coyote willow (Salix exigua), canary reedgrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), common mint (Mentha arvensis), teasel
(Dipsacus laciniatus), milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), unknown Poa spp were dominant across this community at
time of sampling.
Palustrine Emergent
Canary reedgrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) were dominant across this community at
time of sampling.
Upland areas within the project area are highly disturbed and predominately vegetated by non-native flora. While
many species overlapped, topography of these two areas is mainly what differentiated them, as the upper disturbed
community was perched above the rest of the property.
Smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), thistle (Cirsium arvense), teasel (Dipsacus
laciniatus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), musk thistle (Carduus
nutans), kochia (Kochia spp.), and bindweed (Convovulus arvensis) were dominant across this community at time of
sampling.
Musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Russian thistle (Salsola collina), Russian olive (Eleaganus angustifolia), mullein
(Verbascum thapsus), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), kochia (Kochia spp.), bindweed (Convovulus arvensis),
nightshade (Solanum spp.), burdock (Arctium lappa), horsetail (Conyza canadensis), rabbitbrush (Ericameria
nauseosa), hoary tansy aster (Machaeranthera canescens), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus
tectorum), curly dock (Rumex crispus), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), knapweed (Centaurea spp.), and baltic rush (Juncus
balticus) were dominant across this community at time of sampling.
There are three ditch communities on site: ash, cottonwood, and the remnant upland ditch. All three ditch
communities were once connected by the irrigation ditch that ran north to south on the property (Figure 4).
However, likely from the previous owner’s land use practices, the irrigation ditch has been dissected into three
communities that are distinct based on canopy cover.
Ash (Fraxinus spp.), curly dock (Rumex crispus), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus),
unknown forbsand cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) were dominant across this community at time of sampling.
Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), curly dock (Rumex crispus), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), unknown forbs, and
cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) were dominant across this community at time of sampling.
Curly dock (Rumex crispus), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), unknown forbs, and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)
were dominant across this community at time of sampling.
The Project property is 0.41 miles east of Hazaleus Natural Area, 0.2 miles west of Prairie Dog Meadow Natural Area,
and 0.28 miles south of Redtail Grove Natural Area.
On April 25, 2022 an official species list was documented by U.S Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation IPAC: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ was obtained by using known ranges
of federally listed species in The Project area. A list was also unofficially obtained from the 2016 Colorado Natural
Heritage Program database by looking at known sightings of sensitive species near Kingfisher Wetland project area. On
April 30, 2022 an AloTerra Restoration Services field technician conducted a site visit in order to assess suitable habitat
for known listed and sensitive animal species.
Table 2 lists provides a record of the federally listed Federally listed species that could occur within the area of the
proposed project (38 acres). The table includes (a) the common name of the species (b) the scientific name of the
species (c) the status of the species in question (d) whether or not the species should be excluded and (e) the reasoning
why the species should be excluded.
The reasoning of excluding species from the list of concerned species is given based off a variety of reasons including:
1) No suitable habitat was found during site visit, The range of the species in is such that the species is highly
unlikely to not known near occur within the Project site;
2) No suitable habitat was found during the site review; and/or
3) No records for the species exist within the Project site.
Table 2. Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species that may occur or be affected by actions within the Project.
Common Name Species Status Species
Excluded Reason for Exclusion
Mammals
Preble’s meadow jumping
mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened No No detection during survey
Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present.
Birds
Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Yes Critical habitat does not overlap
with project site
Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with project
site
Least tern Sterna antillarum Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with project
site
Common Name Species Status Species
Excluded Reason for Exclusion
Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Yes Range does not overlap with project
site
Fish
Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Yes Species and habitat are not present.
Greenback cutthroat
trout
Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present.
Plants
Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana var.
coloradensis
Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present.
Ute ladies-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present.
Western prairie fringed
orchid
Plantanthera praeclara Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present.
North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula Endangered Yes Found in higher elevation range
(8,000-8,300 ft)
Sourced from IPAC :http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ website. Note- Some species may be affected downstream from water source.
*There are no federally designated critical habitats within the Project area.
The rare plant survey resulted in no evidence of Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) or Colorado butterfly plant
(Gaura neomexicana var. coloradenesis) in the project area.
The sensitive species list is derived from the U.S. Forest Service (https://www.fs.usda.gov) and Colorado Parks and
Wildlife data on present sensitive species ranges and distributions (USFS, 2005). The Regional Forester’s sensitive list is
evaluated by examining viable risk of species; these species are categorized as R2 sensitive, not R2 sensitive, or, not a
concern. Suitable habitat was also determined by a site visit conducted by AloTerra Restoration Services on November
01, 2021. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act no activity that
“takes, transports, barters, or exports the listed migratory birds or eagles is permissible unless it is sanctioned by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The sensitive species list includes migratory birds that could use The Project area as a
breeding, over-wintering, or stopover site.
The species found in Table 3 below are compiled from lists of at-risk species that have potential habitat or occurrence in
the Project area, specifically in the vicinity of the documented wetland. The table is organized as followed: (a) The
common name of the species, (b) The scientific name of the species, (c) The status of the species in question, (d)
Whether or not the species should be excluded, and (e) The reasons why the species should be excluded.
Table 3. Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species that may occur or be affected by the actions within the Project.
Common name Species Status Species
Excluded Reasons for exclusion
Mammals
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Found in coniferous forest and mixed
pine
Townsend’s big-
eared bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Habitat requirements are not in
range
Black-tailed prairie
dog
Cynomys ludovicianus Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes No colonies were found in the
Project site
White-tailed prairie
dog
(Ocynomys leucurus)
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes No colonies were found in the
Project site
Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Range does not overlap with project
site
Common name Species Status Species
Excluded Reasons for exclusion
Swift fox Vulpes velox Forest Service
Sensitive
No No detection during survey
Birds
Bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Forest Service
Sensitive
No No detection during survey
Cassin’s sparrow Aimophila cassinii Bird of Conservation
Concern
Yes Range does not overlap with project
site
Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
Bird of Conservation
Concern
Yes Range does not overlap with project
site
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia State threatened No No detection during survey
Black Swift Cypseloides niger Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Habitat requires cliffs limited in
Colorado
Chestnut-collared
longspur
Calcarius ornatus
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Site location does not overlap with
species range
Sandhill Crane Antigone canadensis
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in
project site
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Forest Service
Sensitive
No No detection during survey
Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni
Federal Species of
Concern
No No detection during survey
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus
savannarum
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Native species range does not meet
area requirements
Fish
Plains Minnow Hybognathus plactius State Endangered Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in
project site
Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in
project site
Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus latipinnis
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in
project site
Amphibians
Northern leopard
frog
Lithobates pipiens Forest Service
Sensitive
No No detection during survey
Plains leopard frog Lithobates blairi Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Range does not overlap with project
site
Species list was sourced from U.S. Forest Service https://www.fs.usda.gov Rocky Mountain Region and USFWS Migratory birds for
the Mountain-Prairie Region updated 2017.
Migratory bird list was sourced from USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php.
As previously discussed in the sections on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Sensitive Species of
Concern, the proposed project should minimally impact populations of species that have ranges that do or may
potentially overlap with the Project area.
During the site visit two active raptor nests were found (Figure 6). A great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) nest was
located in an old-growth cottonwood tree on the northeast corner of the property. One adult and one fledgling were
seen on the nest. In the southwest corner, also in an old-growth cottonwood, an adult red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis) was seen brooding in the nest and a second adult was perched nearby. The nest was heavily guarded by the
adults from raiding crows. The property also has a large, active black-tailed prairie dog colony that occupies well over
three quarters of the property, with 2,016 active burrows documented (Figure 6). There were no signs of swift fox dens
nor were there any burrowing owls observed. Two killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) were seen foraging and may be nesting
as well. Other common birds such as American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Eurasian
collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto), and Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya) were observed flying through the area.
Figure 6. Locations of red-tailed hawk and great horned owl nests, as well as extents of black-tailed prairie dog colony.
AloTerra’s concept design for wetland mitigation and NHBZ (Appendix D) would result in significant ecological uplift of
wetland, riparian, and upland areas, providing potential habitat for a great variety of wildlife, including those species
listed in Tables 2 and 3 of this report.
A formal forestry survey was conducted on April 13, 2022 by Christine Holtz with the City of Fort Collins. Tree mitigation
will include 27.5 trees (Table 4).
Table 4. Tree mitigation list documented by City of Fort Collins Forestry Department.
# Species Stems DBH (inches) Condition Forestry Mitigation
1 Crabapple 9 fair minus 1.5
2 Russian olive 9 and 8 fair minus 1.5
3 Russian olive 3 7 - 8 fair 1.5
4 Siberian elm 26 fair minus 2
5 Siberian elm 6 and 9 fair minus 1.5
6 Siberian elm dead 0
7 Siberian elm dead 0
8 Siberian elm 7 dead 0
9 Cottonwood 11 and 8 poor 2
10 Ash (cloud) 50 fair 2
11 Cottonwood 29 and 19 poor 3
12 Cottonwood 18 poor 2
13 Cottonwood 36 fair minus 2.5
14 Cottonwood 30 fair minus 3
15 Cottonwood 8 14 - 26 poor 5
Total: 27.5
A preliminary weed (non-native plants) list is provided in the above site plant community sections above. Of the weeds
present, those species of greatest management concern include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada thistle
(Cirsium arvense), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae). These species are difficult to eradicate without
intensive chemical treatment methods due to their perennial growth habits.
Wetland mitigation and NHBZ designs will include native seed mixes with wetland, riparian, and upland mixes (see
Appendix D for preliminary plant lists). All seed mixes will combine grass and grass-like species and flowering forbs to
attract pollinators.
Native container plants throughout the wetland mitigation and NHBZ areas are also recommended to increase the
amount of diversity within the Project area. Examples include bulrushes and sedges for the wetland and riparian areas,
and fruiting shrubs and small trees for the upland areas.
To build upon the sustainability goals of AloTerra, the City of Fort Collins, and Core Spaces, we encourage using as many
on-site materials as possible, to minimize the fuel consumption, carbon emissions, and other impacts associated with
materials import. This includes, but not limited to, using existing downed trees as features throughout the NHBZ, which
can provide diverse habitat for wildlife throughout the corridor, and act as natural benches for visitors. Excavated soil in
the wetland mitigation and NHBZ areas can be used as on-site fill for development purposes, to reduce the need to
import fill to the site.
Formal wetland delineation forms (Appendix A) and an Approved Jurisdictional Determination have been submitted to
USACE, with the understanding that because of the isolated nature of the two wetlands onsite, they will not be
considered Water’s of the US (WOTUS) and will not require any further permitting or mitigation under USACE. However,
wetland mitigation will be required by the City of Fort Collins.
AloTerra proposes a wetland design that increases diversity and ecological function. This would be achieved by
excavating and grading the wetland to attain a greater variety of hydrologic conditions. Topography should be designed
to support emergent, mesic meadow, and facultative wetland species, which will transition to riparian habitats where
willows and mesoriparian/xeroriparian shrubs can be planted (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Example wetland cross section.
The project is currently in the Preliminary Development Plan phase. Construction should avoid impacting important
suitable habitat for sensitive or endangered species. In order to minimally impact sensitive or migratory bird
populations, it is important to avoid impacting any potential nesting sites (cottonwood trees or thick vegetation on the
surface). During construction, Colorado Park and Wildlife Regulations pertaining to red-tailed hawks should be followed.
As directed by the City of Fort Collins, the black-tailed prairie dog population will need to be euthanized before
construction begins. Before development activities commence, the prairie dog colony should be euthanized, with a
follow-up survey to confirm extermination. Ethically euthanized black-tailed prairie dogs may be donated to the Rocky
Mountain Raptor Center, but strict guidelines must be followed. Detailed information can be obtained by contacting the
Rocky Mountain Raptor Center at 970-484-7756 or info@rmrp.org.
Issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological character of the area.
Because there are active raptor nests within the Project boundary, CPW regulations for red-tailed hawks must be
followed during construction. A 450’ buffer around the nesting site must be shown on design plans with a note that no
construction within the buffer may occur within the first year of development.
Measures needed to mitigate projected adverse impacts of development on natural habitats and features.
During construction there should be setbacks, silt fence, and erosion control to help mitigate any adverse impacts to
existing wetland and riparian features that will remain on site.
In summary, while the overall quality and diversity of this site is low, it still provides important corridor habitat to
wildlife, which should be maintained. However, we believe that the proposed development would have minimal impact
to sensitive or rare wildlife or plants, natural features, and other important ecological functions and conservation
elements in the region. Additionally, the proposed wetland mitigation and NHBZ would create overall ecological uplift of
the site and enhance the quality of plant communities and connectivity of habitat for wildlife by establishing multiple
plant community types with varying structural and functional diversity.
Bechard, M.J., Houston, C.S., Sarasola, J.H., and England, A.S., (2010). Sw’inson's
Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), In: The Birds of North America (Rodewald, P. G., [Ed.]), Ithaca: Cornell Lab of
Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-
Account/bna/species/swahaw.
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. 2017. Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/fc-plan-draft17.pdf?1495234374
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (2005). Leopard Frogs: Assessing Habitat Quality for Wildlife Species in Colorado
Wetlands. Retrieved from
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/PrioritySpecies/Factsheet-and-Habitat-
Scorecard_LeopardFrogs.pdf.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (n.d.) Species Profiles. Retrieved from
http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx
Marks, R., Paul, R., Rewa, C., and Peak, M., (2005). Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) Wildlife
Habitat Council and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Grasslands/SwiftFox.pdf
Swenson, J. E., K. L. Alt, and R. L. Eng. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildl. Monogr. 95: 1 -46.
Slater, G.L. and Rock, C., (2005). Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): A
Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Retrieved from
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182007.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Critical Habitat: Preble’s Meadow Jumping
Mouse. USFWS Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species Program.
http://mountainprairie.fw16reblepreble/CRITICAL_HABITAT/CRITIALHABITATindex.htm
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Division of Congressional and Legislative
Affairs. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado.
4310-55-S
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions and Recommended
Conservation Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus
hudsonius preblei), the Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis), and the Colorado butterfly plant (Guara
neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) from Emergency Flood Response Activities Along Streams, Rivers, or
Transportation Corridors in Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Ecological Services Field
Office. September 24, 2013.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), (2015). Sensitive Species List: Rocky Mountain Region.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5390116
Woodbridge, B., (1998). Sw’inson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In: The Riparian Bird
Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian-associated Birds in California. California
Partners in Flight. Retrieved from http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0)
Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022
Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP3
Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range:
Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: PEM
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes
Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Y Is the sampled area within a wetland: Y
Hydric Soil Present: Y
Wetland Hydrology Present: Y
Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and
west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287.
VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES)
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet
% Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species
1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
3. Total no. of dominant
4. species across all strata: 1 (B)
5.
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp.
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1. Salix exigua 7 No OBL Prevalence Index Worksheet
2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL spp: xx x1 =
4. FACW spp: 100 x2 =200
5. FAC spp: xx x3 =
7 = % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 =
UPL spp: xx x5 =
Column totals: (A)100 (B)200
Prevalence Index (B/A) = 2
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
1. Phalari 100 Yes FACW _X__ 2. Dominance test is > 50%
2. _X__ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01
3. ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide
4. Supporting data in remarks or attach)
5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1
6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
7. (explain)
8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic
10.
11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes
100= % Total Herb Cover
Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
= % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 95
REMARKS:
SOILS
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
0-6.5 10YR2/1 99 7YR4/6 1 C M Silty Clay
6.5-16 10YR4/2 25 10YR5/6 5 C M Silty clay
10YR3/1 70
1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
__ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10)
__ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2)
__ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12)
__ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain)
__ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3)
__ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
__ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless
__ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Salt deposits throughout soil stratum.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
__ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9)
__ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
__ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) _X_ Drainage patterns (B10)
__ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2)
__ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9)
__ Drift deposits (B3) __ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) _X_ Geomorphic position (D2)
__ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3)
__ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5)
__ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA)
_X_ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7)
__ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8)
Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Surface water present: N Depth (inches):
Water table present: N Depth (inches):
Saturation present: N Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if
available:
Remarks:
FORM NOTES
Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody
vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height.
FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010)
The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and
dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is
met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used
in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW
versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology
determinations.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0)
Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022
Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP4
Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range:
Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes
Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: N Is the sampled area within a wetland: N
Hydric Soil Present: Y
Wetland Hydrology Present: Y
Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and
west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287.
VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES)
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet
% Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species
1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
3. Total no. of dominant
4. species across all strata: (B)
5.
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp.
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1. Prevalence Index Worksheet
2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL spp: xx x1 =
4. FACW spp: 100 x2 =200
5. FAC spp: xx x3 =
= % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 =
UPL spp: xx x5 =
Column totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index (B/A) =
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
1. Bromus inermis 75 Yes UPL ___ 2. Dominance test is > 50%
2. Pascopyrum smithii 25 Yes UPL ___ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01
3. ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide
4. Supporting data in remarks or attach)
5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1
6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
7. (explain)
8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic
10.
11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: No
100= % Total Herb Cover
Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
= % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 95
REMARKS:
SOILS
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
0-4 10Y3/1 100 Silty Clay
4-6.5 10YR3/1 75 7.5YR4/6 1 C M Silty clay
10YR4/2 29
6.5-19 10YR3/1 15 7.5YR4/6 6 C M Clay
10YR4/3 80
1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
__ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10)
__ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2)
__ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12)
__ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain)
__ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3)
__ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
__ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless
__ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Salt deposits throughout soil stratum.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
__ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9)
__ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
__ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) _X_ Drainage patterns (B10)
__ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2)
__ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9)
__ Drift deposits (B3) _X_ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) _X_ Geomorphic position (D2)
__ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3)
__ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5)
__ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA)
__ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7)
__ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8)
Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Surface water present: N Depth (inches):
Water table present: N Depth (inches):
Saturation present: N Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if
available:
Remarks:
FORM NOTES
Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody
vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height.
FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010)
The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and
dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is
met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used
in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW
versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology
determinations.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0)
Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022
Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP5
Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range:
Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: PEM
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes
Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Y Is the sampled area within a wetland: Y
Hydric Soil Present: Y
Wetland Hydrology Present: Y
Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and
west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287.
VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES)
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet
% Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species
1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1(A)
2.
3. Total no. of dominant
4. species across all strata: 1 (B)
5.
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp.
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B)
Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1. Prevalence Index Worksheet
2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL spp: xx x1 =
4. FACW spp: 99 x2 =198
5. FAC spp: xx x3 =
= % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 =
UPL spp: xx x5 =
Column totals: (A) 99 (B) 198
Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
1. Phalaris arundinacea 99 Yes FACW _X__ 2. Dominance test is > 50%
2. Rumex crispus 5 No UPL _X__ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01
3. Taraxacum officinale <1 No UPL ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide
4. Supporting data in remarks or attach)
5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1
6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
7. (explain)
8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic
10.
11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes
100= % Total Herb Cover
Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
= % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: <1% % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 95
REMARKS:
SOILS
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
0-5 10YR2/1 100 Silty clay loam
5-16 10YR3/2 25 7.5YR5/8 1 C M Silty clay
10YR4/2 75 2.5YR4/8 1 C PL
1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
__ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10)
__ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2)
__ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12)
__ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain)
__ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3)
__ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
__ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless
__ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Salt deposits throughout soil stratum.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
__ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9)
__ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
__ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) _X_ Drainage patterns (B10)
__ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2)
__ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9)
__ Drift deposits (B3) _X_ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) _X_ Geomorphic position (D2)
__ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3)
__ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5)
__ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA)
__ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7)
__ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8)
Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Surface water present: N Depth (inches):
Water table present: N Depth (inches):
Saturation present: N Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if
available:
Remarks:
FORM NOTES
Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody
vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height.
FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010)
The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and
dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is
met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used
in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW
versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology
determinations.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0)
Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022
Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP6
Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range:
Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes
Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: N Is the sampled area within a wetland: N
Hydric Soil Present: Y
Wetland Hydrology Present: N
Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and
west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287.
VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES)
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet
% Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species
1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
3. Total no. of dominant
4. species across all strata: (B)
5.
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp.
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1. Prevalence Index Worksheet
2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL spp: xx x1 =
4. FACW spp: x2 =
5. FAC spp: xx x3 =
= % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 =
UPL spp: xx x5 =
Column totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
1. Bromus inermis 99 Yes UPL ___ 2. Dominance test is > 50%
2. Dipsacus laciniatus 1 No UPL ___ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01
3. ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide
4. Supporting data in remarks or attach)
5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1
6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
7. (explain)
8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic
10.
11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: No
100= % Total Herb Cover
Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
= % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: <1% % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 95
REMARKS:
SOILS
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
0-7 10YR3/2 100 Silty clay loam
7-16 10YR4/4 95 7.5YR4/6 1 C M Silty clay
10YR3/1 5
1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
__ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10)
__ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2)
__ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12)
__ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain)
__ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3)
__ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
__ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless
__ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Salt deposits throughout soil stratum.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
__ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9)
__ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
__ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) __ Drainage patterns (B10)
__ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2)
__ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9)
__ Drift deposits (B3) __ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) _X_ Geomorphic position (D2)
__ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3)
__ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5)
__ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA)
__ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7)
__ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8)
Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Surface water present: N Depth (inches):
Water table present: N Depth (inches):
Saturation present: N Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if
available:
Remarks:
FORM NOTES
Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody
vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height.
FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010)
The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and
dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is
met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used
in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW
versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology
determinations.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0)
Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022
Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP7
Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range:
Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: PSS
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes
Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Y Is the sampled area within a wetland: Y
Hydric Soil Present: Y
Wetland Hydrology Present: Y
Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and
west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287.
VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES)
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet
% Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species
1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 1
2.
3. Total no. of dominant
4. species across all strata: (B)1
5.
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp.
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) 100
Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1. Salix exigua 30 Yes OBL Prevalence Index Worksheet
2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL spp: 30 x1 = 30
4. FACW spp: x2 =
5. FAC spp: xx x3 =
30 = % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 =
UPL spp: xx x5 =
Column totals: (A) 30 (B) 30
Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
1. Mentha arvensis 1 No FACW _X__ 2. Dominance test is > 50%
2. Poa spp. 1 No N/A __X_ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01
3. Asclepias speciosa 1 No FAC ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide
4. Dipsacus laciniatus 1 No UPL Supporting data in remarks or attach)
5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1
6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
7. (explain)
8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic
10.
11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes
4= % Total Herb Cover
Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
= % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: <1% % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 90
REMARKS:
Houndstongue in willow carr.
SOILS
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
0-7 10YR2/2 100 silty clay loam
7-18 10YR4/3 90 7.5YR4/6 1 C M silty clay
10YR3/1 10
1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
__ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10)
__ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2)
__ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12)
__ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain)
__ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3)
__ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
__ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless
__ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Salt deposits throughout soil stratum.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
__ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9)
__ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
__ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) _X_ Drainage patterns (B10)
__ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2)
__ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9)
__ Drift deposits (B3) __ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) _X_ Geomorphic position (D2)
__ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3)
__ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5)
__ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA)
__ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7)
__ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8)
Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Surface water present: N Depth (inches):
Water table present: N Depth (inches):
Saturation present: N Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if
available:
Remarks:
FORM NOTES
Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody
vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height.
FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010)
The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and
dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is
met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used
in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW
versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology
determinations.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0)
Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022
Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP8
Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range:
Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Slope (%): 1%
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: None
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes
Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes
Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: N Is the sampled area within a wetland: N
Hydric Soil Present: Y
Wetland Hydrology Present: N
Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and
west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287.
VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES)
Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet
% Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species
1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
3. Total no. of dominant
4. species across all strata: (B)
5.
= Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp.
That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1. 30 Yes OBL Prevalence Index Worksheet
2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
3. OBL spp: x1 =
4. FACW spp: x2 =
5. FAC spp: xx x3 =
30 = % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 =
UPL spp: xx x5 =
Column totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index (B/A) =
Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
% Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation
1. Bromus inermis 95 Yes UPL ___ 2. Dominance test is > 50
2. Juncus balticus 5 No FAC ___ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01
3. ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide
4. Supporting data in remarks or attach)
5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1
6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
7. (explain)
8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic
10.
11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes
100= % Total Herb Cover
Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
= % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: <1% % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 90
REMARKS:
SOILS
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
0-16 10YR4/2 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C M silty clay loam
1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
__ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10)
__ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2)
__ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12)
__ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain)
__ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3)
__ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
__ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless
__ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic
Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Salt deposits throughout soil stratum.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
__ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9)
__ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
__ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) __ Drainage patterns (B10)
__ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2)
__ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9)
__ Drift deposits (B3) __ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) __ Geomorphic position (D2)
__ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3)
__ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5)
__ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA)
__ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7)
__ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8)
Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Surface water present: N Depth (inches):
Water table present: N Depth (inches):
Saturation present: N Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if
available:
Remarks:
FORM NOTES
Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH),
regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3.
Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody
vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height.
FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010)
The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and
dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is
met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used
in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW
versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology
determinations.
Figure 1. PEM wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling.
Figure 2. PEM wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling.
Figure 3. PEM wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling.
Figure 4. PEM wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling.
Figure 5. PSS wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling.
Figure 6. PSS wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling.
1 | P a g e
Core Spaces (hereafter referred to as the Project) site is located in Fort Collins, Colorado in Larimer County
(Figure 1). The property is bordered by Highway 287 on the east, Skyway Dr to the north, Trilby Rd to the south
and Constellation Dr residential housing to the west. Although not connected, The Prairie Dog Meadow Natural
Area lies less than half a mile to the east of the Project. Currently The Project is used for agricultural purposes
and is proposed to undergo housing development. The project area is dominated by uplands. Within the Project
contains several old growth cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides) on the north and south borders. Herbaceous
plants across the site were dominated by non-native species, such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Riparian
areas were dominated by canary reedgrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) and coyote willow (Salix exigua).
Figure 1. Location of Core Spaces in Fort Collins, Colorado.
2 | P a g e
The purpose of this wildlife review is to assess the probable effects on federally listed species and sensitive
species in the proposed Project site, per Section 7 of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Under the actions,
consultations, and recommendations of the USFWS, in cooperation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The
authorized organization must ensure, with the best scientific data available, that there will be no negative
change or destruction to critical habitats in the Project area (USFWS, 2013).
On April 25, 2022 an official species list was documented by U.S Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation IPAC: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ was obtained by using
known ranges of federally listed species in The Project area. A list was also unofficially obtained from the 2016
Colorado Natural Heritage Program database by looking at known sightings of sensitive species near Kingfisher
Wetland project area. On April 30, 2022 an AloTerra Restoration Services field technician conducted a site visit in
order to assess suitable habitat for known listed and sensitive animal species.
Table 1 lists provides a record of the federally listed Federally listed species that could occur within the area of
the proposed project (38 acres). The table includes (a) the common name of the species (b) the scientific name
of the species (c) the status of the species in question (d) whether or not the species should be excluded and (e)
the reasoning why the species should be excluded.
The reasoning of excluding species from the list of concerned species is given based off a variety of reasons
including:
1) No suitable habitat was found during site visit, The range of the species in is such that the species is
highly unlikely to not known near occur within the Project site;
2) No suitable habitat was found during the site review; and/or
3) No records for the species exist within the Project site.
Table 1. Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species that may occur or be affected by actions within the
Project.
Common Name Species Status Species
Excluded Reason for Exclusion
Mammals
Preble’s meadow
jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened No No detection during survey
Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not
present.
Birds
Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Yes Critical habitat does not overlap
with project site
Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with
project site
Least tern Sterna antillarum Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with
project site
Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Yes Range does not overlap with
project site
Fish
Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Yes Species and habitat are not
present.
Greenback cutthroat
trout
Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not
present.
3 | P a g e
Common Name Species Status Species
Excluded Reason for Exclusion
Plants
Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana var.
coloradensis
Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not
present.
Ute ladies-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not
present.
Western prairie fringed
orchid
Plantanthera praeclara Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not
present.
North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula Endangered Yes Found in higher elevation range
(8,000-8,300 ft)
Sourced from IPAC :http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ website. Note- Some species may be affected downstream from water
source.
*There are no federally designated critical habitats within the Project area.
Since 1998, the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) has been federally listed as
threatened by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. In Colorado, they are also listed as Species of Greatest
Conservation Needs, considered sensitive by the US Forest Service, and critically imperiled according to the
Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Declining PMJM populations are due to predation, habitat degradation, and
fragmentation. In Colorado, the PMJM can be found up to elevations around 7,000 feet east of the Front Range,
and west to the shortgrass prairie. (USFWS, 2013)
Preble’s meadow jumping mice are found in areas with natural hydrological processes that create a dense
riparian area with biologically diverse herbaceous plants. PMJM have been found in environments with a variety
of plant species, frequently in areas with a thick layer of grasses and forbs that create cover. Studies show that
the specific species composition of herbaceous plants is not as important to supporting populations, but that
suitable habitat needs to have a higher percentage of ground cover in the vicinity to open water. Most PMJM
were found within areas with a higher density of the shrub layer consisting mostly of willows. The mice use
adjacent grassy uplands as far as approximately 300 feet from the 100-year floodplain to “hibernate” during the
colder months. These nests are called hibernacula and can be found under the cover of snowberry, chokecherry,
cottonwoods, gooseberry, and other willow species.
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (1973) prevents any funded or authorized agency to take action that
would negatively affect lands labeled as PMJM Critical habitat. Critical Habitat is defined by areas currently
occupied by the species or potential areas in which the species could establish. In 2013, The Fish and Wildlife
Service revised the critical habitat designation for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (shapefiles found at:
https://www.fws.gov/mountain-
prairie/es/species/mammals/preble/CRITICAL%20HABITAT/CRITICALHABITATindex.htm.). The approximate
50,000 acres designated for critical habitat occur adjacent to streams and rivers in the Colorado foothill and
mountain regions. PMJM critical habitat is located in Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer
and Teller Counties (USFWS, 2014). Currently there is no critical habitat designated in the Project area (USFWS,
2010). Although the Project area does not have optimal habitat due to lack of desired upland vegetation,
presence of PMJM cannot be confirmed without a thorough survey of the area.
The rare plant survey resulted in no evidence of Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies’-tresses) or Gaura neomexicana
var. coloradenesis (Colorado Butterfly Plant) in the Project area.
4 | P a g e
The sensitive species list is derived from the U.S. Forest Service (https://www.fs.usda.gov) and Colorado Parks
and Wildlife data on present sensitive species ranges and distributions (USFS, 2005). The Regional Forester’s
sensitive list is evaluated by examining viable risk of species; these species are categorized as R2 sensitive, not
R2 sensitive, or, not a concern. Suitable habitat was also determined by a site visit conducted by AloTerra
Restoration Services on November 01, 2021. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act no activity that “takes, transports, barters, or exports the listed migratory birds or
eagles is permissible unless it is sanctioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The sensitive species list
includes migratory birds that could use The Project area as a breeding, over-wintering, or stopover site.
The species found in Table 2 below are compiled from lists of at-risk species that have potential habitat or
occurrence in the Project area, specifically in the vicinity of the documented wetland. The table is organized as
followed: (a) The common name of the species, (b) The scientific name of the species, (c) The status of the
species in question, (d) Whether or not the species should be excluded, and (e) The reasons why the species
should be excluded.
Table 2. Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species that may occur or be affected by the actions within the
Project.
Common name Species Status Species
Excluded Reasons for exclusion
Mammals
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Found in coniferous forest and
mixed pine
Townsend’s big-
eared bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Habitat requirements are not in
range
Black-tailed prairie
dog
Cynomys ludovicianus Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes No colonies were found in the
Project site
White-tailed prairie
dog
(Ocynomys leucurus)
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes No colonies were found in the
Project site
Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Range does not overlap with
project site
Swift fox Vulpes velox Forest Service
Sensitive
No No detection during survey
Birds
Bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Forest Service
Sensitive
No No detection during survey
Cassin’s sparrow Aimophila cassinii Bird of Conservation
Concern
Yes Range does not overlap with
project site
Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
Bird of Conservation
Concern
Yes Range does not overlap with
project site
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia State threatened No
Black Swift Cypseloides niger Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Habitat requires cliffs limited in
Colorado
Chestnut-collared
longspur
Calcarius ornatus
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Site location does not overlap
with species range
Sandhill Crane Antigone canadensis
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in
project site
5 | P a g e
Common name Species Status Species
Excluded Reasons for exclusion
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Forest Service
Sensitive
No No detection during survey
Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni
Federal Species of
Concern
No No detection during survey
Grasshopper
sparrow
Ammodramus
savannarum
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Native species range does not
meet area requirements
Fish
Plains Minnow Hybognathus plactius State Endangered Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in
project site
Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in
project site
Flannelmouth
Sucker
Catostomus latipinnis
Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in
project site
Amphibians
Northern leopard
frog
Lithobates pipiens Forest Service
Sensitive
No No detection during survey
Plains leopard frog Lithobates blairi Forest Service
Sensitive
Yes Range does not overlap with
project site
Species list was sourced from U.S. Forest Service https://www.fs.usda.gov Rocky Mountain Region and USFWS Migratory
birds for the Mountain-Prairie Region updated 2017.
Migratory bird list was sourced from USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php.
Historically Swift fox (Vulpes velox) populations declined due to habitat fragmentation and loss, competition,
trapping, and collateral damage when trying to kill wolves. In Colorado they are listed as Special Concern and
classified as a sensitive species by USFS Region 2. They range throughout western United States but are found in
higher abundances in Colorado than Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota, where they still have not reached
historical population levels. The fox appears to not be affected by heavily grazed ecosystems and can be found
in a variety of habitat types that include short-grass and mid-grass prairies, including a variety of agricultural
land types. In these areas, vegetation is typically dominated by blue grama, buffalograss, western wheatgrass,
and sagebrush. Fox dens have been found in areas with low vegetation on slight slopes in well-drained sites,
with soil types that include silty loam or loam. The species are not directly reliant on riparian areas and can be
found up to 3 miles away from any source of water. (Marks et al., 2005). No dens were sighted in the Project
area. Due to the size of the proposed Project area, there should be minimal impacts to swift fox populations.
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is found only in North America (CPW, n.d.). Populations declined in
the early-mid 20th century due to impacts from pesticides (mainly DDT), disturbance and loss of trees for nesting
habitat. The eagle was consequently placed on the Endangered Species List. However, with the ban on the
pesticide DDT and protection of nesting habitat, the eagles have substantially recovered, with Endangered
status reduced to Threatened in 1995 and with further recovery was de-listed nationally. The bald eagle was
removed from the Colorado list of threatened and endangered species in 2009. Bald eagles can be found
6 | P a g e
throughout much of Colorado during both summer and winter and can be observed near reservoirs and major
rivers such as the South Platte. Eagles will roost and nest in large cottonwood trees, roosting communally in the
winter for warmth. Bald eagles have a varied diet, with nests often found near water in tall trees, building nests
that can be 7 to 8 feet across. No nests or signs of bald eagles were seen during site visit on November 01, 2021.
Any bald eagles that may be using the area should not be negatively affected by the Project, especially if large
trees can be protected from construction activities.
The Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is considered locally uncommon to fairly common on the Colorado
eastern plains and rare to uncommon in mountain parks and on the western slope (Andrews and Righter 1992).
These small raptors are distinguished by their long legs, round head and have no ear tufts. They feed on insects,
small mammals and reptiles, foraging in grasslands and pastures and other agricultural lands. Although they can
excavate nesting holes in sandy soil they prefer to use empty burrows made by other animals, primarily rodents.
These ground nesters are often seen in and closely tied to prairie dog towns. Burrowing owl populations have
drastically declined due to habitat lost to agriculture and development. During the site visit a large active prairie
dog colony was found, but no burrowing owls were observed.
The Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) is a Tier 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Colorado and a Forest
Service Sensitive Species in Region 2. These raptors reside in a variety of habitats year-around, including
grasslands and marshes. They reside throughout Colorado, with higher densities on the eastern plains, short-
grass prairies and western valleys. In the eastern plains these birds breed in a variety of ecosystems, preferring
large wetlands (>250 acres) with dense vegetation (7-10 inches in height). Nests are found either on the ground
or on a platform usually near open water. More specifically, nests are commonly found hidden in wetland
vegetation, where cover is taller than 60 cm. (Slater, 2005) During the site visit on November 01, 2021 no
northern harrier was sighted, and no nests were found. The Project development is unlikely to negatively impact
the species due to the species range and scope of the Project.
The Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is found throughout Colorado in open areas, usually native short and
tall grass prairies, and agricultural lands. Since the 1980s, Swainson Hawk populations declined in many parts of
its range due to removal of riparian habitat, and lack of nest site availability (Bechard, 2010). The raptors’ home
range varies between about 170 to 21,550 acres depending on the amount of forage and water available. Nests
will frequently be found in a lone tree or post in these grasslands, but they can also be found along riparian
areas among a cluster of trees within their home range. The nests are found in a variety tree species including
cottonwood (Populus sp.), willows (Salix sp.), sycamores (Platanus sp.), and walnut (Juglans sp.) These hawks are
a migratory bird species, listed on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, traveling from North America to breed in the
summer to South America for wintering. (Woodbridge, 1998) This raptor has a high tolerance for human
disturbance and can be found in areas with high human activity, although there can be nest abandonment if
there is high-intensity disturbance or construction near a nesting tree. When nests occur, they are usually found
15-30 feet above ground. AloTerra Restoration Service’s wildlife technician conducted a field assessment on
November 01, 2021 and found no nests in the proposed construction area. The Swainson’s Hawk should not be
negatively affected by the Project due to the extensive size of their home range and minimal effect to potential
nesting sites from construction activities.
Northern leopard frogs (Lithobates blairi) are found statewide in Colorado and are currently listed as a Tier 1
Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Population declines are due to climate change, invasive diseases, habitat
7 | P a g e
loss, pollution, and predation. The frogs can be found in the western United States in elevations up to 11,000
feet. This species can inhabit a variety of riparian areas including stream channels, sloughs, reservoirs, gravel
pits, and oxbows. For breeding and foraging purposes, the frogs prefer dense vegetation with heights around 6
to 12 inches and more than 30 percent cover. Northern leopard frog breeding sites commonly occur in semi-
permanent ponds or wetlands with water depths to 25 to 40 inches. Water quality is an important factor for
most amphibians, needing unpolluted sites with water that is well oxygenated and pH balanced (6.1-7) (CPW,
2005). Through the winter, leopard frogs hibernate on the bottom of ponds located beneath 1-1.5 feet of rock
where water depths were at least 2 feet. Construction associated with The Project may impact individuals that
were not identified during the general survey, but due to the size and location of the construction project it is
not likely to result in a decline in population toward federal listing.
As previously discussed in the sections on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Sensitive Species
of Concern, the proposed project should minimally impact populations of species that have ranges that do or
may potentially overlap with the Project area.
During the site visit two active raptor nests were found (Figure 6). A great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) nest
was located in an old-growth cottonwood tree on the northeast corner of the property. One adult and one
fledgling were seen on the nest. In the southwest corner, also in an old-growth cottonwood, an adult red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was seen brooding in the nest and a second adult was perched nearby. The nest was
heavily guarded by the adults from raiding crows. The property also has a large, active black-tailed prairie dog
colony that occupies well over three quarters of the property, with 2,016 active burrows documented (Figure 6).
There were no signs of swift fox dens nor were there any burrowing owls observed. Two killdeer (Charadrius
vociferus) were seen foraging and may be nesting as well. Other common birds such as American robin (Turdus
migratorius), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto), and Say’s
phoebe (Sayornis saya) were observed flying through the area.
8 | P a g e
Figure 2. Locations of red-tailed hawk and great horned owl nests, as well as extents of black-tailed prairie dog
colony.
Construction should avoid impacting important suitable habitat for sensitive or endangered species. In order to
minimally impact sensitive or migratory bird populations, it is important to avoid impacting any potential nesting
sites (cottonwood trees or thick vegetation on the surface). During construction, Colorado Park and Wildlife
Regulations pertaining to red-tailed hawks should be followed. As directed by the City of Fort Collins, the black-
tailed prairie dog population will need to be euthanized before construction begins, and a pre-construction
survey will need to be conducted to determine if the population has been eradicated. Ethically euthanized black-
tailed prairie dogs may be donated to the Rocky Mountain Raptor Center, but strict guidelines must be followed.
Detailed information can be obtained by contacting the Rocky Mountain Raptor Center at 970-484-7756 or
info@rmrp.org.
9 | P a g e
Andrews, J.N. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and
Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado. 442pp.
Bechard, M.J., Houston, C.S., Sarasola, J.H., and England, A.S., (2010). Swainson's
Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), In: The Birds of North America (Rodewald, P. G., [Ed.]), Ithaca: Cornell Lab of
Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-
Account/bna/species/swahaw.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (2005). Leopard Frogs: Assessing Habitat Quality for Wildlife Species in
Colorado Wetlands. Retrieved from
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/PrioritySpecies/Factsheet-and-Habitat-
Scorecard_LeopardFrogs.pdf.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (n.d.) Species Profiles. Retrieved from
http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx
Marks, R., Paul, R., Rewa, C., and Peak, M., (2005). Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) Wildlife
Habitat Council and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Grasslands/SwiftFox.pdf
Swenson, J. E., K. L. Alt, and R. L. Eng. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildl. Monogr. 95: 1 -46.
Slater, G.L. and Rock, C., (2005). Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): A
Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Retrieved from
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182007.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Critical Habitat: Preble’s Meadow Jumping
Mouse. USFWS Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species Program.
http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/preble/CRITICAL_HABITAT/CRITIALHABITATindex.htm
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Division of Congressional and Legislative
Affairs. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado.
4310-55-S
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions and Recommended
Conservation Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus
hudsonius preblei), the Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis), and the Colorado butterfly plant (Guara
neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) from Emergency Flood Response Activities Along Streams, Rivers, or
Transportation Corridors in Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Ecological Services Field Office.
September 24, 2013.
10 | P a g e
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), (2015). Sensitive Species List: Rocky Mountain Region.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5390116
Woodbridge, B., (1998). Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In: The Riparian Bird
Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian-associated Birds in California. California
Partners in Flight. Retrieved from http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html
1 of 3
SHEET NO:
Google Satellite
Imagery
SOURCE
OF MAP:
ESPG: 2232
NAD 83 /
Colorado North
LAYER
PROJECTION:PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:Core Spaces, Fort Collins, COWetland Mitigation and NHBZConcept Design5/25/2022
DATE ISSUED:
Concept Design
not for
ConstructionConcept Hydroseres
Wetland (2.53 acres)
Riparian (1.45 acres)
Upland (6.79 acres)
NHBZ (4.8 acres)
Proposed Major Contours
Proposed Minor Contours
DH Linework (JR Engineering)
Property Boundaries
Project Boundary
LEGEND
2 of 3
SHEET NO:
Google Satellite
Imagery
SOURCE
OF MAP:
ESPG: 2232
NAD 83 /
Colorado North
LAYER
PROJECTION:PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:Core Spaces, Fort Collins, COPreliminary Seed Mix Lists5/25/2022
DATE ISSUED:
Concept Design
not for
Construction
3 of 3
SHEET NO:
Google Satellite
Imagery
SOURCE
OF MAP:
ESPG: 2232
NAD 83 /
Colorado North
LAYER
PROJECTION:PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:Core Spaces, Fort Collins, COPreliminary Container Plant Lists5/25/2022
DATE ISSUED:
Concept Design
not for
Construction