The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPOLESTAR VILLAGE - PDP220010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ECS REPORT04/07/2022 ............................................................................................................................................ 3 .............................................................................................................................. 3 ................................................................................................................................. 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 4 .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 ......................................................................................................... 7 ............................................................................................................................................ 8 ............................................................................................................................................... 9 ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 ............................................................................................................... 10 ............................................................................................................................................ 10 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 .......................... 12 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 ................................................................................................................................... 13 .................................................................................................................................................................... 13 ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 ................................................................................................................................ 14 ....................................................................... 16 ................................................................................ 17 .............................................................................................................. 19 ...................................... 20 This report constitutes the Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) required for the proposed development of the Pole Star Community within the General Commercial (CG) zone district and the TOD overlay district. This ECS report is provided in association with a conceptual design (Appendix D) for the 50’ Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) 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 Pole Star Community project (the Project) includes the development of mixed-use residential properties that ranges from single family homes to studio apartments and live/work units (Figure 1). This site is what was previously Happy Heart Farms and associated undeveloped areas. Due to the proximity of Saddle Ridge Natural Area and Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, the City of Fort Collins Environmental Planning Department is requiring a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat. Currently, there is one wetland area on site, totaling 0.05 acres of wetland habitat (Figure 3). A majority of this wetland occurs within the NHBZ area. NHBZ designs, including wetland and riparian area enhancement, are included in the attached concept design plan. Several species of mature trees exist on site, including both native and introduced species, that provide corridor habitat for a variety of wildlife species, which will also need to be included in mitigation efforts. Figure 1. Property map showing conceptual site plan developed by JR Engineering. The approximately 21.5-acre property is located within the City of Fort Collins on what was previously Happy Heart Farms. The northern border of the property is bordered by the Locust Grove subdivision, on the east the Mountaire subdivision, to the south, private landowners, to the southwest Scenic Views PUD, and to the west Saddle Ridge Natural Area (Figure 2). The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal also borders the west and southern boundaries of the property (Figure 2). The center of the property lies approximately at 4034’37.20” N and 10507’46.35” 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: September 24, 2021, November 1, 2021 Wildlife Field Review: November 1, 2021 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 historic agricultural and pasture fields, 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). Given the proximity of the property to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, a manmade water diversion, it is likely that the existing wetland and cottonwood trees are not historic; however, both are important to wildlife habitat and connectivity. Historic aerial imagery dating back to 1956 shows that this area has been in agriculture for a minimum of 65 years. Currently, the upland areas are dominated by crops, 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 various conifer species that were planted as a wind row. The opportunity for wildlife to thrive in the existing conditions is low, with little connectivity to adjacent habitats. Soils are generally loam, clay loam, and clay (Table 1). The greatest habitat features include the wetland community and native cottonwoods that exist on site. Figure 5. Existing soil types within the Project boundary. Table 1. Soil type descriptions. Soil Type/Composition Map Symbol Slope Profile Parent Material Drainage Class Depth to Water Table Hydric Soil Altvan- Satanta loam 45% Altvan, 30% Satanta, 25% minor components 3 0-3% Altvan H1 – 0 to 10”: loam H2 – 10 to 18”: clay loam H3 – 18 to 30”: loam H4 – 30 to 60”: gravelly sand Satanta H1 – 0 to 9”: loam H2 – 9 to 18”: loam H3 – 18 to 60”: loam Mixed alluvium Well drained More than 80” No Soil Type/Composition Map Symbol Slope Profile Parent Material Drainage Class Depth to Water Table Hydric Soil Altvan-Satanta loam 55% Altvan, 35% Satanta, 10% minor components 4 3-9% Altvan H1 – 0 to 9”: loam H2 – 9 to 16”: clay loam H3 – 16 to 31”: loam H4 – 31 to 60”: gravelly sand Satanta H1 – 0 to 9”: loam H2 – 9 to 14”: loam H3 – 14 to 60”: loam Mixed alluvium Well drained More than 80” No Heldt clay loam 90% heldt, 10% minor components 48 0-3% H1 – 0 to 4”: clay loam H2 – 4 to 15: clay H3 – 15 to 26”: clay H4 – 26 to 35”: clay H5 – 35 to 80”: clay Fine textured alluvium derived from clayey shale Well drained More than 80” No Loveland clay loam 90% loveland, 10% minor components 64 0-1% H1 – 0 to 15”: clay loam H2 – 15 to 32”: loam H3 – 32 to 60”: very gravelly sand Alluvium Poorly drained More than 80” No Satanta loam 90% satanta, 10% minor components 95 1-3% H1 – 0 to 9”: loam H2 – 9 to 18”: clay loam H3 – 18 to 79”: loam Eoilian sands Well drained More than 80” No The site is currently dominated by former and existing agricultural operations, a small wetland, and riparian vegetation associated with Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. The greatest ecological functions provided by existing site include organic matter production by the non-native vegetation, which supports some wildlife species and also helps to minimize soil erosion. However, the low diversity of native upland vegetation minimizes the related diversity and biomass of native wildlife. The wetland and associated riparian habitat provide some minor wildlife benefits, though those benefits are limited due to its small size and low structural/functional diversity. Existing infrastructure includes a headgate and associated culverts that are connected to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. A small lateral irrigation line also runs from west to east through the property for agricultural purposes. A berm on the east side of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal was likely constructed as an embankment during Canal excavation, with a secondary benefit of controlling flooding on Happy Valley Farms. Existing electrical, fiber, water infrastructure can be found on the JR Engineering PDP. The project site is generally flat (< 5% slope). 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 the emergent 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. The existing riparian plant associates are likely a result of human-created topographic (e.g., stormwater drainages), hydrologic, and surface water alterations. 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 housing 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 a small patch of cattail (Typha latifolia) 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 wetland; however, the quality of this wetland is of moderate to poor condition and function. The subsections below outline the conditions of native habitats existing on site: wetlands, agriculture, pasture, and disturbed uplands. 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. Because the vegetation and hydrology of the wetland, we consider it more typical of an herbaceous wetland community, and field indicators of an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) were weak, therefore we did not perform an OHWM survey. Historic aerial imagery does not indicate that this wetland has been a natural feature of this area for the long-term, it is likely a result of the change in hydrology due to the construction of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. Cattail (Typha latifolia), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), canary reedgrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Russian olive (Eleaganus angustifolia), and fringed willow herb (Epilobium cilatum) were the dominant species at the time of sampling. The project site is highly disturbed and predominately vegetated with non-native grasses. Due to the high cover of bare ground, high cover of non-native vegetation, and low diversity of structure, the wildlife value of this field is very low. Hairy evening primrose (Oenothera villosa), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), kochia (Bassia scoparia), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae), and three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus) were the dominant and subdominant species in this community, with some bare ground (~30%) present at time of sampling. The project site is highly disturbed and predominately vegetated with non-native grasses. Due to the high cover of bare ground, high cover of non-native vegetation, and low diversity of structure, the wildlife value of this field is very low. Smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) were the dominant species in this community present at time of sampling. Upland areas are highly disturbed and predominately vegetated by non-native flora. Due to the high cover non- native vegetation and low diversity or structure, the wildlife value of these areas is very low. Smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and bindweed (Convovulus arvensis) were dominant across this community at time of sampling. The Project property is directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of Saddle Ridge Natural Area (Figure 1), which is managed by the Saddle Ridge Commons Condominium Association. A full wildlife survey was conducted on November 1, 2021. A songbird survey will be conducted in the spring of 2022. The full wildlife report can be found in Appendix C. An official species list was documented by U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation IPAC was obtained 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 determining known sightings of sensitive species near Kingfisher Wetland project area. On November 1, 2021 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 (20 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 the actions within the Project. Common Name Species Status Species Excluded Reason for Exclusion Mammals Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened No Species and habitat are not present. 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. 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 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. Sensitive species that could occur in the Saddle Ridge Natural Area. 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 Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Forest Service Sensitive No 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 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 Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Federal Species of Concern No Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Found in sage brush habitat 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 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, the proposed Project would minimally impact (or have no impact) to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Species, and Sensitive Species of Concern whose ranges potentially overlap with the Project area. In addition, due to low vegetation species diversity and poor riparian conditions, the Project area does not provide any critical habitat to federally listed or sensitive species. The mature cottonwoods provide some habitat for song birds and raptors in the spring and summer, including great horned owls, American kestrels, western tanagers, dark-eyed juncos, and variety of sparrows. No ground nests or raptor nests were found on the site during site visit of November 01, 2021. There were signs of raccoons (Procyon lotor), great blue herons (Ardea herodias) and coyote (Canis latrans). A young male mule deer was seen along the canal corridor and droppings were found throughout the Project. Many common animal species have been observed throughout the Project including garter snakes, Canadian geese, great horned owls, Eurasian doves, blue jays, Northern flickers, golden finches, and House sparrows. Ornate box turtles and Mallard ducks have been sighted in the pond north of the Project. This wetland area and old growth trees could potentially be suitable habitat for songbird nesting/feeding and should therefore be protected during any future construction. AloTerra’s concept design for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) (see Appendix D for plan set) 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 has not yet been conducted by the City of Fort Collins; however, tree mitigation needs will be taken into account in future iterations of AloTerra’s NHBZ design. A preliminary weed (non-native plants) list is provided in the wetland, riparian, and upland 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. The landowners for this Project have requested the use of organic weed control and treatments, which align with their philosophies for the long-term health of the property. Because of the aggressive nature of the non-native species within the NHBZ, we recommend removing the top 8+” of soil from the weed dominated areas, to remove the aboveground biomass (i.e., seed source) and root mass (i.e., reproduction via rhizomes, tillers, and other root buds) for the weeds. This will eradicate these weeds without the use of herbicides. Canada thistle rhizomes can penetrate much deeper, so a formal weed management plan will be developed with certified organic treatment recommendations, as well as methods for spot treating any other weeds that may reestablish. If more fill material is needed for the project site, up to 12” can be excavated from the NHBZ site; however, depth of excavation should be taken into account around the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal berm so that the stability of the berm is not jeopardized. The weed excavated areas will be treated with new topsoil, or amended with organics such as compost and/or slow- release organic fertilizers. These treated areas will be restored with a diversity of native locally-adapted vegetation, per the Concept Design in Appendix D. The 50’ wide NHBZ, with the western boundary being the existing top of bank of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, will build upon the natural features of the existing property. Currently, three distinct communities exist; wetland/riparian, and upland. By treating this area as described above, the site will be appropriate for native seed and plant containers. Native seed mixes will include wetland, riparian, and two upland mixes (see Appendix D for plant lists). To address the shade created by existing trees, we recommend a full sun mix and a shade-tolerant upland seed mix. Shade-tolerant seed mixes will be broadcast where trees will remain, with exact locations of these mixes to be refined in future design iterations, and once a formal tree inventory and mitigation plan is completed. All seed mixes will combine grass and grass-like species, shrubs, and flowering forbs to attract pollinators. Native container plants throughout the three zones will also be installed to increase the amount of diversity throughout the NHBZ. 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 Pole Star, 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 NHBZ can be used as on-site fill for development purposes, to reduce the need to import fill to the site. Currently, the wetland boundary overlaps with the planned development (Figure 1). Depending on the wetland determination status by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Fort Collins mitigation requirements, AloTerra proposes a wetland design that increases diversity and ecological function. This would be achieved by excavating the wetland to achieve a greater variety of hydrologic conditions (e.g., shallow open water, submergent, emergent, etc.). Topography will also be designed to support mesic meadow and facultative wetland species, which will transition to riparian habitats where willows and mesoriparian/xeroriparian shrubs can be planted (Figure 6). Figure 6. Example wetland cross section. The project is currently in the Preliminary Development Plan phase. JR Engineering estimates that construction will start in 2023. 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 (e.g., cottonwood trees, willow thickets, or areas of high herbaceous vegetation cover). Issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological character of the area. Because no active raptor nests currently exist on site, and the site does not provide significant migratory bird habitat, it is not likely that spring construction limitations would be imposed. However, we do recommend a site survey prior to construction to confirm that no raptor nests have been established on site since the initial wildlife review. No other issues regarding timing are known at this time. Measures needed to mitigate projected adverse impacts of development on natural habitats and features. During construction there will be setbacks, silt fence, and erosion control to help mitigate any adverse impacts to existing wetland and riparian features, as well as to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal water quality. In summary, 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. The proposed NHBZ would create overall ecological uplift of the site and enhance the quality of plant communities and connectivity of habitat for wildlife. Because the site is currently dominated by invasive species, the value to wildlife is not significant due to minimal structure and function. 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.fw14reblepreble/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 – Great Plains Project/Site: Pole Star Applicant/Owner: AloTerra Restoration Services Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): NA Subregion (LRR): City/County: Fort Collins, Larimer Co. State: CO Section/Township/Range: Local Relief: None Lat: Long: Sampling Date: 11/01/2021 Sampling Point: SP1 Slope (%): less than 1% Datum: n/a 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, Yes ; or Hydrology Yes significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? -- Are Vegetation, No answers in Remarks.) Soil, No ; or Hydrology No naturally problematic? . -- (If needed, explain any SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes Hydric Soil Present: Yes Wetland Hydrology Present: Yes Is the sampled area within a wetland: Yes 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. Remarks: Area is a slight depression on the east side of a berm and man made ditch (Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal). Hydrology likely comes from ditch. Historic aerial imagery does not indicate a wetland present on the site prior to ditch establishment. __ __ __ __ __ __ Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species 1. -- -- that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. -- -- 3. -- -- Total no. of dominant 4. -- -- species across all strata: 3 (B) 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. )Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. -- -- 2. -- -- 3. -- -- 4. -- -- 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. Typha latifolia 2. Juncus balticus 10 Yes 85 Yes OBL FACW 3. Solidago canadensis 1 -- UPL 4. Cirsium arvense 1 -- UPL 5. Phalaris arundinaceae 10 Yes FACW 6. Symphyotrichum laeve 7. 1 -- -- FAC -- 8. -- -- 9. -- -- 10. -- -- 11. -- -- 108 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 -- -- -- -- 0 = Total Cover REMARKS: Wetland area is dominated by baltic rush and canary reed grass with a small patch of cattails. Sampling Point: SP1 Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Cover of: OBL spp: FACW spp: FAC spp: FACU spp: UPL spp: 10 95 1 0 2 Multiply by: x1 = 10 x2 = 190 x3 = 3 x4 = 0 x5 = 10 Column totals: (A) 108 (B) 213 Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1.87 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ _ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation _ _ 2. Dominance test is > 50% _ _ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 _ _ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide Supporting data in remarks or attach) _ _ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 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 0-10 10-18 10yr 2/1 98 10yr 4/1 98 7.5YR 5/6 2 7.5yr 5/6 2 C M 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 Soils3 Histosol (A1) Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) Histic epipedon (A2) Sandy redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy mucky mineral (F1) 1cm Muck (A9) Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Thick dark surface (A12) Redox dark surface (F6) Red parent material (TF2) Sandy mucky mineral (S1) Depleted dark surface (F7) Very shallow dark surface (TF12) 2.5 cm Mucky peat or peat (S2) Redox depressions (F8) Other (explain) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present) Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface water (A1) Salt crust (B11) Soil surface cracks (B6) High water table (A2) Aquatic invertebrates (B13) Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) Drainage patterns (B10) Water marks (B1) Dry-season water table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish burrows (C8) Algal mat or crust (B4) Presence of reduced iron (C4) Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) Iron deposits (B5) Thick muck surface (C7) Geomorphic position (D2) Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) Other (explain in remarks) FAC-neutral test (D5) Water stained leaves (B9) Field Observations: Surface water present: No Water table present: Yes Saturation present: Yes Depth (inches): Depth (inches): soil pit filled at -18 inches Depth (inches): at surface Frost-heave hummocks (D7) (LRR F) (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 1 cm muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast prairie redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark surface (S7) (LRR G) High plains depressions (F16) Hydric Soil Present? Yes Sampling Point: SP1 Silty clay loam Soil Chroma and Value for Wetland Soils Per 2018 regional supplement: The following combinations of value and chroma identify a depleted matrix for loamy and clayey material (and sandy material in areas of indicators A11 and A12): 1. Matrix value of 5 or more and chroma of 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 2. Matrix value of 6 or more and chroma of 2 or 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 3. Matrix value of 4 or 5 and chroma of 2, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 4. Matrix value of 4 and chroma of 1, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Common (2 to less than 20 percent) to many (20 percent or more) redox concentrations (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002) are required in soils with matrix colors of 4/1, 4/2, and 5/2 (Figure A1). Redox concentrations include iron and manganese masses and pore linings (Vepraskas 1992). See “contrast” in this glossary for the definitions of “distinct” and “prominent.” Gleyed matrix. A gleyed matrix has one of the following combinations of hue, value, and chroma and the soil is not glauconitic (Figure A2): • 10Y, 5GY, 10GY, 10G, 5BG, 10BG, 5B, 10B, or 5PB with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1; or • 5G with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1 or 2; or • N with value of 4 or more (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Redoximorphic Definitions Concentration: Patches of oxidized iron which can form soft masses and along root channels and other pores. Depletion: Gray or reddish gray colors of soil caused by the loss of iron through translocation. Reduced Matrix: Soils that are saturated and contain ferrous iron at the time of sampling may change color upon exposure to the air, as ferrous iron oxidizes to ferric iron in the presence of oxygen. ; DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION – Great Plains Project/Site: Pole Star Applicant/Owner: AloTerra Restoration Services Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): NA Subregion (LRR): City/County: Fort Collins, Larimer Co. State: CO Section/Township/Range: Local Relief: None Lat: Long: Sampling Date: 11/01/2021 Sampling Point: SP2 Slope (%): less than 5% Datum: n/a Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation, Yes Soil, Yes ; or Hydrology Yes significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? No Are Vegetation, No answers in Remarks.) Soil, No ; or Hydrology No naturally problematic? . -- (If needed, explain any SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes Hydric Soil Present: No Wetland Hydrology Present: No Is the sampled area within a wetland: No 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. Remarks: Upland boundary marker for SP1. __ __ __ __ __ __ Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species 1. -- -- that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. -- -- 3. -- -- Total no. of dominant 4. -- -- species across all strata: 2 (B) 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. )Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. -- -- 2. -- -- 3. -- -- 4. -- -- 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover -- 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 -- -- -- -- 0 = Total Cover REMARKS: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Sampling Point: SP2 Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Cover of: OBL spp: FACW spp: FAC spp: FACU spp: UPL spp: 0 85 1 0 25 Multiply by: x1 = 0 x2 = 170 x3 = 3 x4 = 0 x5 = 125 Column totals: (A) 111 (B) 298 Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1.64 Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Status _ _ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 1. Bromus inermis 25 Yes UPL 2. Juncus balticus 5 -- FACW 3. Phalaris arundinacea 80 Yes FACW 4. Symphuotruchum laeva 1 -- FAC 5. -- -- 6. -- -- 7. -- -- _ _ 2. Dominance test is > 50% _ _ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 _ _ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide Supporting data in remarks or attach) _ _ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 8. -- -- 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 9. -- -- be present, unless disturbed or problematic 10. -- 11. -- 111 = Total Cover -- Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Remarks: Soils are much drier and sandier Remarks: No standing water in soil pit, no staturation in soil strata 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 Sandy clay loam sandy clay loam Remarks 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 Soils3 Histosol (A1) Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) Histic epipedon (A2) Sandy redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy mucky mineral (F1) 1cm Muck (A9) Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Thick dark surface (A12) Redox dark surface (F6) Red parent material (TF2) Sandy mucky mineral (S1) Depleted dark surface (F7) Very shallow dark surface (TF12) 2.5 cm Mucky peat or peat (S2) Redox depressions (F8) Other (explain) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present) Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface water (A1) Salt crust (B11) Soil surface cracks (B6) High water table (A2) Aquatic invertebrates (B13) Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) Drainage patterns (B10) Water marks (B1) Dry-season water table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish burrows (C8) Algal mat or crust (B4) Presence of reduced iron (C4) Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) Iron deposits (B5) Thick muck surface (C7) Geomorphic position (D2) Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) Other (explain in remarks) FAC-neutral test (D5) Water stained leaves (B9) Field Observations: Surface water present: No Water table present: No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Frost-heave hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Saturation present: No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? No 1 cm muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast prairie redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark surface (S7) (LRR G) High plains depressions (F16) Hydric Soil Present? No Sampling Point: SP2 0-12 10yr 5/1 100 -- -- 12-16 10YR 4/2 100 -- -- -- -- -- -- Soil Chroma and Value for Wetland Soils Per 2018 regional supplement: The following combinations of value and chroma identify a depleted matrix for loamy and clayey material (and sandy material in areas of indicators A11 and A12): 1. Matrix value of 5 or more and chroma of 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 2. Matrix value of 6 or more and chroma of 2 or 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 3. Matrix value of 4 or 5 and chroma of 2, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 4. Matrix value of 4 and chroma of 1, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Common (2 to less than 20 percent) to many (20 percent or more) redox concentrations (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002) are required in soils with matrix colors of 4/1, 4/2, and 5/2 (Figure A1). Redox concentrations include iron and manganese masses and pore linings (Vepraskas 1992). See “contrast” in this glossary for the definitions of “distinct” and “prominent.” Gleyed matrix. A gleyed matrix has one of the following combinations of hue, value, and chroma and the soil is not glauconitic (Figure A2): • 10Y, 5GY, 10GY, 10G, 5BG, 10BG, 5B, 10B, or 5PB with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1; or • 5G with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1 or 2; or • N with value of 4 or more (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Redoximorphic Definitions Concentration: Patches of oxidized iron which can form soft masses and along root channels and other pores. Depletion: Gray or reddish gray colors of soil caused by the loss of iron through translocation. Reduced Matrix: Soils that are saturated and contain ferrous iron at the time of sampling may change color upon exposure to the air, as ferrous iron oxidizes to ferric iron in the presence of oxygen. Figure 1. Overview of wetland boundary (pink flagging). Figure 2. Sample Point 1 soil pit (LEFT), with standing water at the bottom and Sample Point 2 soil pit (RIGHT). 1 | P a g e Happy Heart Farms (hereafter referred to as the Project) site is located in Fort Collins, Colorado in Larimer County (Figure 1). The property is situated to the north of West Elizabeth Street and to the west of South Overland Trail, and is surrounded by residential communities and natural areas. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal runs west of the Project site and is lined by Crack willow (Salix fragilis) and Russian Olive (Elaegnus angustifolia). Currently The Project is used for residential and agricultural purposes and is proposed to undergo development for the establishment of the Pole Star Community. In November of 2021, AloTerra Restoration Services (AloTerra) delineated 0.05 acres of wetland which occurs north of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal in the southwest corner of The Project. The surface and ground water associated with the farmland flows south towards West Elizabeth Street. Uplands within the Project contains several old growth cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides) and are dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and agricultural crops. Riparian areas are dominated by canary reedgrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) and baltic rush (Juncus balticus), with limited surface water. 2 | P a g e Figure 1: Location of Happy Heart Farms in Fort Collins, Colorado. 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 November 1, 2021 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 November 1, 2021 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 (20 acres). The table includes (a) the common name of the species (b) the 3 | P a g e 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 Species and habitat are not present. 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. 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. 4 | P a g e 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. 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. 5 | P a g e 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 Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Forest Service Sensitive No 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 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 Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Federal Species of Concern No Greater sage- grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Found in sage brush habitat 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 6 | P a g e 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 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 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. 7 | P a g e 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 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. 8 | P a g e As previously discussed in the sections on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Sensitive Species of Concern, the proposed restoration project should minimally impact populations of species that have ranges that do or may potentially overlap with the Project area. Due to low vegetation species diversity and poor riparian conditions the Project area does not provide any critical habitat to federally listed or sensitive species. The mature cottonwoods provide some habitat for song birds and raptors in the spring and summer including; great horned owls, American kestrels, western tanagers, dark-eyed juncos, and variety of sparrows. No ground nests or raptor nests were found on the site during site visit of November 01, 2021. There were signs of raccoons (Procyon lotor), great blue herons (Ardea Herodias) and coyote (Canis latrans). A young male mule deer was seen along the canal corridor and droppings were found throughout the Project. Many common animal species have been observed throughout the Project including garter snakes, Canadian geese, great horned owls, Eurasian doves, blue jays, Northern flickers, golden finches, and House sparrows. Ornate box turtles and Mallard ducks have been sighted in the pond north of the Project. This wetland area and old growth trees could potentially be suitable habitat for songbird nesting/feeding and should therefore be protected during any future construction. 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). 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 9 | P a g e 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. 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 5 SHEET NO: Google Satellite Imagery SOURCE OF MAP: ESPG: 2232 NAD 83 / Colorado Central LAYER PROJECTION:PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, CONatural Habitat Buffer Zone ConceptDesign04/05/2022 DATE ISSUED: Concept Design not for ConstructionNHBZ Design Riparian Upland - full sun Upland - shade tolerant Upland Shrubs to be Planted Existing Trees to Remain Existing Wetland Boundary (0.05 ac) Linework from JR Engineering Pleasant Valley Lake and Canal Centerline Existing Toe of Bank Existing Top of Bank Existing Major ContoursProposed Permeable Trail Saddle Ridge Natural Area Property Boundaries Project Boundary LEGEND Re-use of existing downed trees, or trees to be removed during construction for wildlife and visitor use. Boundary of wetland to be determined by USACE and City of Fort Collins (will be reflected in next design iteration). 2 of 5 SHEET NO: Google Satellite Imagery SOURCE OF MAP: ESPG: 2232 NAD 83 / Colorado Central LAYER PROJECTION:PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, COExample Wetland Cross Section04/05/2022 DATE ISSUED: Concept Design not for Construction 3 of 5 SHEET NO: Google Satellite Imagery SOURCE OF MAP: ESPG: 2232 NAD 83 / Colorado Central LAYER PROJECTION:PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, COSeed Mix Species Lists04/05/2022 DATE ISSUED: Concept Design not for Construction 4 of 5 SHEET NO: Google Satellite Imagery SOURCE OF MAP: ESPG: 2232 NAD 83 / Colorado Central LAYER PROJECTION:PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, COContainer Species Lists04/05/2022 DATE ISSUED: Concept Design not for Construction 5 of 5 SHEET NO: Google Satellite Imagery SOURCE OF MAP: ESPG: 2232 NAD 83 / Colorado Central LAYER PROJECTION:PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, COTypicals04/05/2022 DATE ISSUED: Concept Design not for Construction SHRUB PLANTING CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE 25 - 50% Deeper than rootball 2x Rootball diameter 2x depth of mulch Irrigation berm Undisturbed soil Amended backfll Container shrub WILLOW CUTTING CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE 8-12” above ground surface Willow cutting NOTES: 1. All willow cuttings shall be sound, healthy specimens. Plant materials that have serious injuries, insect pests, diseases or are overly dry, will be rejected. 2. If harvested, cuttings shall be obtained from approved sources 3. using a sharp tool. Cuttings shall be long enough to reach depth of 6” into the groundwater during the driest times of the year. Cutting shall have a basal end of 0.50-1.5” in diameter. The top ends shall be blunt and butt ends shall be cut at 45 degrees. They shall be stripped of all but two or three healthy terminal stems. 4. The contractor shall provide for the proper care, storage, and handing of the cuttings. During all stages of construction, the cuttings shall be protected from exposure to wind and direct sunlight. 5. Prior to installation, the contractor shall ag all planting locations for approval by owner’s rep. Adjustments to these locations may be required to meet eld conditions. 6. If cuttings cannot be installed directly into the required depth due to soil conditions, a dibble bar, auger or other tool shall be used to create a pilot hole. Space around hole must be eliminated to ensure good soil-stem contact. 7. Additional industry standards should be followed to ensure high survival rates. Pilot hole Existing soil Lowest seasonal groundwater level 6” min Min 8” of soil above low season groundwater Pack soil against planted cutting. NOTES:1. Broken or crumbling root-balls will be rejected.2. Care should be taken not to damage the shrub root-ball when removing it from thecontainer.3. Backfill around the root-ball with soil so that it does not exceed specifications inrestoration notes4. Excavate planting pit 2x the diameter of the root-ball and 25-50% deeper thanheight of root-ball.5. Add backfill around root-ball in 2 layers, watering each layer before applying thenext.6. Add 2” of mulch to cover 18” of the ground/drip line, leaving 1” open around trunk ofshrub.7. Use part of the excavated soil to build an irrigation berm at the edge of drip-line,about 1-2” high and 3-4” wide. Import soil as needed from nearby harvest sites.