HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOLESTAR VILLAGE - PDP220010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - ECS REPORT10/24/2022
............................................................................................................................................ 3
.............................................................................................................................. 3
................................................................................................................................. 3
......................................................................................................................................... 4
.......................................................................................................................................................... 4
................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
................................................................................................................................................................. 7
........................................................................................................................................................................ 7
....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
......................................................................................................... 7
............................................................................................................................................ 8
............................................................................................................................................... 9
......................................................................................................................................................... 9
............................................................................................................... 10
............................................................................................................................................ 10
............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
.............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
.................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
.......................... 12
.......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
................................................................................................................................... 13
.................................................................................................................................................................... 14
..................................................................................................................................................... 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 30% design (Appendix D) for the 50’ Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) required for this
development, wetland mitigation, and riparian forest mitigation. 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 (see JR Engineering Plan Set). 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 impacts to wildlife habitat. Currently, there is one wetland area on site, totaling 0.06 acres of
wetland habitat, which will require a 50’ buffer, as well as riparian forest habitat which will require a 50’ buffer from the
dripline (Figure 2). A majority of this wetland occurs within the NHBZ area. NHBZ designs, including wetland and riparian
area enhancement, are included in the attached 30% 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, which will also need to be
included in mitigation efforts.
The approximate 21.5-acre property is located within the City of Fort Collins, on what was previously Happy Heart
Farms. The northern edge of the property is bordered by the Locust Grove subdivision, and the easter edge is bordered
by the Mountaire subdivision. The southern edge is bordered by private landowners, and the southwest border is shared
with Scenic Views PUD. Saddle Ridge Natural Area lies to the west (Figure 1). The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal also
borders the west and southern boundaries of the property (Figure 1). The center of the property lies approximately at
4034’37.20” N and 10507’46.35” W.
Figure 1. 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 to characterize existing ecological and wildlife
conditions, as well as other natural features occurring on the site.
Ecological Field Assessments: September 24, 2021, November 1, 2021, October 21, 2022
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 its relative cover is greater than 20%. 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 dominant species that are present, we
are confident that this survey captured 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 2. Approximately 99% of the project site is characterized as historic agricultural and pasture fields. Less than
1% of the site is comprised of wetland and riparian communities, which are in a degraded state or dominated by
understories of exotic plants.
Figure 2. 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 of these habitats are important to wildlife habitat directly, and as part
of larger corridors. 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
due to cultivation activities. 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 windrow or grew in association with high moisture conditions
along the canal. 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 3. Existing soil types within the Project boundary.
Table 1. Soil type descriptions (data from USGS Web Soil Survey).
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
Soil
Type/Composition
Map
Symbol Slope Profile Parent
Material
Drainage
Class
Depth to
Water Table
Hydric
Soil
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.
Natural Communities or Habitats
Aquatic: no; Wetland and wet meadow: yes; Native grassland: no;
Riparian forest: yes; 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 and Figure 4/Table 2 for mitigation.
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. Field indicators of an Ordinary High-Water Mark
(OHWM) were weak, therefore we did not perform an OHWM survey.
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.
AloTerra mapped the dripline of the riparian forest area, which will require a 50’ mitigation buffer (Figure 1).
Crack willow (Salix x fragilis), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and Canada thistle
(Cirsium arvense).
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 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 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.
Figure 4. Mitigation areas for NHBZ, wetland, and riparian forest.
Table 2. Mitigation Requirements based on Land Use Code from City of Fort Collins.
Mitigation Type Mitigation Acreage (habitat + 50’ buffer)
Wetland 0.5 acres
Riparian Forest 1.2 acres
Total 1:1 Mitigation Required: 1.7 acres
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 3 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 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 Notes, or 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 4 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 4. 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 3 and 4 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 5).
Figure 5. 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.fw15reblepreble/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
;
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 --
--
--
--
-- --
;
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: 10/21/2022
Sampling Point: SP3
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:
Additional wetland point on north side of wetland
__
__
__
__
__
__
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: 1 (A)
2. -- --
3. -- -- Total no. of dominant
4. -- -- species across all strata: 1 (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
5 No
1 No
FAC
UPL
95 No FACW
--
1.Juncus balticus
2.Cirsium arvense
3.Phalaris arundinaceae
4.
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:
Sampling Point: SP3
Prevalence Index Worksheet
Total % Cover of:
OBL spp:
FACW spp:
FAC spp:
FACU spp:
UPL spp:
0
95
5
0
1
Multiply by:
x1 = 0
x2 = 190
x3 = 15
x4 = 0
x5 = 5
Column totals: (A) 100 (B) 210
Prevalence Index (B/A) = 2.1
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:
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
silty clay loam
silty clay
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)
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Frost-heave hummocks (D7) (LRR F)
Field Observations:
Surface water present: No
Water table present: No
Saturation present: Yes Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
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: SP3
0-8.5
8.5-16
7.5YR 3/1
10YR 3/2
10yr 4/1
99
48
48
C M
C
--
M
--
-- --
7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 4/6
1
4
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
30% Design
DATE:Revegetation NotesSHEET NO.:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, CO10/24/2022
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:EPSG: 2231 NAD83
Colorado North
REVEGETATION, SOILS, AND BIOENGINEERING NOTES
1.Containers (shrubs and trees) shall be protected from beaver and other wildlife using the "plant protection" detail in plan set, where located above the bankfull elevation. Containers (shrubs) located below bankfull shall be protected from potential foot traffic with two wood stakes such that the above ground portion of the stake is at least as high as the canopy of the shrub container plant. Containers (herbaceous) shall not be fenced or staked.
2.All soil applied to the site must be free of Colorado state noxious and Colorado A and B listed weed propagules, and shall not contain more than 0.01% by dry weight of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), or Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis). Project engineer or their representative shall approve all imported soil and fill for weed content before material is purchased.
3.A soil test shall be required for any import soils that may be required. The following soil chemistry characteristics must not be exceeded in soils that both receive seed or plant materials and have either been amended or installed between or over riprap:
a. Soil pH shall be between 5.8 and 7.8.
b. Soil electrical conductivity (using ECe method) shall be less than 2.0 dS/m (less than 2.0 mS/cm, less than 2,000 uS/cm, less than 2.0 mmho/cm). Imported compost shall not exceed 4.0 dS/m, regardless of the ratio at which it is incorporated into the topsoil or subsoil.
c. Sodium absorption ratio of soils or imported compost shall be less than 3.
d. Soil organic matter shall be between 10% and 20% by dry weight. The desired portion of recalcitrant organic matter, as a percentage of total organic matter, is between 10% and 40% by dry weight.
e. In general, nitrogen supplementing is not recommended for native plant restoration, except in very small quantities when a deficiency in native or imported topsoil is noted. Based on the soil test, nitrogen additions may be required by the project engineer.
f. In seeded areas, if imported topsoil is deficient in nitrogen and low in organic matter, soil amendments used shall include biosol (300-400 lbs/acre) and humate (300-500 lbs/acre) or similar. Compost may also be mixed with native soil to meet organic content requirements, only if the resultant topsoil meets the above soil chemistry criteria.
4. All seed must be inspected by the contractor prior to installation, and all tags must be maintained for documentation. All seed must be labeled as "certified" by the Colorado seed growers association and shall not include the presence of noxious or invasive species prohibited under the Colorado seed act. Seed must be free of Colorado state noxious and Colorado A and B listed weed propagules shall not contain more than 0.01% by dry weight of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), smooth brome
(Bromus inermis), or Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis). Project engineer or their representative shall approve all seed mixes for weed content and substitutions before seed is purchased. Seed identification and certification tags shall be provided to the project manager for review and approval prior to use.
5. A restoration ecologist should be consulted when reviewing weed-free seed, soil, mulch, and soil amendment products, including the list of potential weeds present in the product in question.
6. Seeding shall be broadcast at rates listed in seed mix, raked into the soil surface to a depth of between 0.25 and 0.5 inches deep, and covered with mulch at a rate that attains 70% soil coverage and is no deeper than 1".
7. THE SEED MIXES SHALL BE APPLIED TO AREAS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SET.
8. Mulch shall be aesthetically pleasing, and be able to withstand windspeeds up to 60 mph and remain in place.
9. Wood straw or wood shred shall be used for surface mulch on seeded and planted areas. If wood shred is used, it shall contain a diversity of wood fiber lengths, with less than 10% fines (i.e., less than 2" in length). If approved by the project manager, alternative weed-free and wind resistant mulch may be used.
10. The placement of surface mulch over seeded areas shall occur a maximum of 96 hours after seeding. Each shrub or tree planting shall be treated with mulch according to typical details. Mulch shall be kept 1-2 inches away from stems of shrubs and trees. Herbaceous plants shall not be mulched, except where indicated in the plan set.
11. Certified weed-free mulch shall be used in all situations. Proper labeling for each bale or lot of mulch used is required. Project manager has the right to inspect and reject bales if they are suspected to contain unacceptable weed contents. Specifically, smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis), fireweed (Kochia scoparia), and other aggressive exotic plant species shall not be present in mulches used for the project. A restoration ecologist or
botanist should be consulted when reviewing the weed-free mulch product. A list of potential weeds present in the mulch and the product information shall be provided to the project manager and project designer for review and approval prior to use. Hay, regardless of the source, shall not be used as a mulch.
12. Containers (herbaceous and woody) shall be planted as specified in the “plant palette" and "planting schedule" tables, and "revegetation construction details" of this plan set.
13. Each plant container must contain a label identifying the species in the container. Labels shall be left with the plant and be available for inspection by the project manager and project designer prior to installation, and must be kept in the ground following transplanting, for follow-up identification.
14.Ecotypic (i.e., sourced from genetically local populations) plant materials are required when available. Refer to the plant materials yellow pages (www.southernrockiesseed.org) for a list of vendors who carry ecotypic plant materials in Colorado. When ecotypes are not available, site adapted cultivars may be approved by the project manager if they are suited to the unique conditions of the site. For the purposes of this project, ecotypes are those plant materials (cuttings, seeds, or berries) whose
origin meets the following criteria. Genetically unmodified native plant material that is sourced not more than 1,000 feet higher or lower (and preferentially not more than 500 feet higher or lower) in elevation than the work site, and not more than 100 miles north or south of the work site.
15. Shrubs and trees planted as container stock or bare-root stock shall be surrounded by a planting depression, including an irrigation berm, of 2" deep at the center of the depression, and 18” in diameter from berm to berm.
16. Due to the poor condition of substrate in which container stock will be installed, amended backfill (approved loam soil mix with between 20-40% organic matter by volume) shall be placed around their root balls to a width at least twice the diameter of the root ball and to a depth of at least one quarter the depth of the root ball. Amended backfill shall be tamped moderately to remove air pockets and watered thoroughly while backfilling around the root ball. Shall cover the root ball when roots are
exposed on the upper surface of root ball.
17. Cuttings shall be installed within areas labeled as mesic or facultative hydroseres (i.e. zones), or as indicated in the plan set. These locations are generally at or near bankfull elevation. Cuttings shall be cottonwoods or willows, as specified in the "planting palette" of this plan set. Willow cuttings shall be installed at a frequency indicated in the "planting schedule". Harvesting and installation of cuttings (willow/cottonwood) shall follow the "field guide for harvesting and installing willow and cottonwood
cuttings" (www.synergy3.org). Cuttings shall be ecotypes harvested from native populations.
18.Soil lifts, joint planting, and other bioengineering treatments shall follow typical details of the plan set.
E1DRAFT
30% Design
Mitigation Hydroseres - Plan ViewDATE:
SHEET NO.:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, COMitigation Hydroseres
Crusher Fine Trail
Emergent (0.04 ac)
Mesic Meadow (0.3 ac)
Facultative Understory/Riparian Forest Overstory (0.5 ac)
Mesoriparian/Xeroriparian (0.2 ac)
Upland (0.6 ac)
Hydroriparian (willow/cottonwood cuttings)
Riparian Forest Cottonwood Poles
Mesoriparian/Xeroriparian Shrubs
Trees to Remain
50' Natural Habitat Buffer Zone
Existing Topography
Saddle Ridge Natural Area
Property Parcels
Pole Star Project Boundary
LEGEND
Total Wetland Mitigation = 0.84 acres
Riparian Forest Mitigation = 0.5 acres
10/24/2022
PREPARED FOR:Grading Guidlines for Mitigation Hydroseres
(based on depth to groundwater, where 0' = groundwater elevation)
Emergent: -0.5' to 0'
Mesic Meadow: 0' to +0.5'
Facultative: +0.5' to +1.5'
Mesoriparian/Xeroriparian: +1.5' to +2.5'
Upland: +2.5' and greater PREPARED BY:EPSG: 2231 NAD83
Colorado North
E2
30% Design
DATE:Planting PlanSHEET NO.:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, COPlanting Plan
Emergent/Mesic Meadow Seed
Facultative Seed
Upland Seed
Emergent Containers
Mesic Meadow Containers
Facultative Containers
Mesoriparian/Xeroriparian Containers
Hydroriparian (willow/cottonwood cuttings)
Cottonwood Poles
Mesoriparian/Xeroriparian Shrubs
50' Natural Habitat Buffer Zone
Existing Topography
Saddle Ridge Natural Area
Property Parcels
Pole Star Project Boundary
LEGEND
10/24/2022
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:EPSG: 2231 NAD83
Colorado North
E3
30% Design
Erosion ControlDATE:
SHEET NO.:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, COErosion Control Treatments
Koir 700 with Straw Underneath
Wood Straw
50' Natural Habitat Buffer Zone
Existing Topography
Saddle Ridge Natural Area
Property Parcels
Pole Star Project Boundary
LEGEND
10/24/2022
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:EPSG: 2231 NAD83
Colorado North
E4
30% Design
DATE:Draft Seed MixesSHEET NO.:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, CO10/24/2022
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:E5
30% Design
DATE:Draft Plant PalettesSHEET NO.:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, CO10/24/2022
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:E6
30% Design
DATE:TypicalsSHEET NO.:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, CO10/24/2022
PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:EROSION CONTROL MATTING - STAKE LAYOUT DETAIL
PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE
Stakes or staples 18" o.c. in
bottom of backfilled trench
Erosion control blanket
Stakes or staples
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE
Overlap 12" of
upwind/upstream
fabric on top of
downwind/downstream
fabric
Overlap 12" of
upgradient fabric
on top of lower
gradient fabric
Stakes or staples
Stake pattern detailDOWNHILLSLOPE Overlap (TYP.)
6"
Erosion control blanket
EROSION CONTROL MATTING - TRENCH DETAIL
CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE
Backfilled trench
Stake or staple
6"
6"
PREVAILING WIND
AND/OR STREAM FLOW DIRECTION
6"
NOTES:
1.
2.
Remove all rocks and logs greater than 4” diameter (st size) and seed area
before applying erosion matting.
Before installing erosion matting, decompact and prepare seedbed as
indicated in project-specic restoration notes.
3. Seed and harrow area.
4. Use 100% biodegradable matting.
5.
6.
Lay blankets loosely and install according to project specications with staples
or wood stakes to secure matting.
Stakes will have a maximum spacing of 24” on all sides in a checkerboard
pattern.
7. Upwind portions of erosion control shall overlap 12” over the top of downwind
portion. When applicable, upgradient portions of blanket shall overlap 12” of
downgradient portions of blanket. Stakes shall be installed in a zig-zag
pattern every 12”.
8. Erions control blankets shall be keyed into soil at the top of slope and
upstream ends of project to a depth of 6”. These trenches shall be secured
using staples or wood stakes, 18” on center, then backlled with soil and
tamped well.
9. Density of stakes is depending on slope; claried in project-specic restoration
notes.
SHRUB PLANTING
CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE
25 - 50% Deeper than rootball
2x Rootball
diameter
NOTES:
1.Broken or crumbling rootballs will be
rejected.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Care should be taken not to damage the
shrub or rootball when removing it from
its container.
Backfll around rootball with soil that
does not exceed specifcations in
restoration notes.
Excavate planting pit 2x the diameter fo
the rootball and 25-50% deeper than
height of rootball.
Add backfll around rootball in 2” layers,
watering each layer before applying the
next of soil.
Add 2” of mulch to cover 18” of the
ground/dripline, leaving 1” open around
trunk of shrub.
Use part of the excavated soil to build an
irrigation berm at the edge of dripline,
about 1-2” high and 3-4” wide. Import
soil as needed from nearby harvest sites.
2x depth of mulch
Irrigation berm
Undisturbed soil
Amended backfll
Container shrub Leave 3-4 later branches
and terminal branch (do not
cut terminal buds)
Soil (dry)
Max 5’ above
ground
Min. 3' of cutting
below ground
6” min.
Capillary
fringe
Low-season
water table
COTTONWOOD POLE PLANTING
CROSS SECTION (TYPICAL)NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1.
2.
All harvested cottonwood cuttings shall be lively and straight,
harvested within 50 miles of the project site, and no more than
500' lower or higher in elevation than the project site.
If harvested, cuttings shall be obtained from approved
sources using a sharp tool.
3.The pole should be approximately 8' in length.
4.
5.
Cutting shall have a basal end of 1.0-2.0” in diameter. The top
ends shall have the terminal bud with three lateral branches
beneath the terminal bud intact.
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.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Cuttings shall soak for 10-20 days prior to installation,
maintaining well oxygenated water while soaking.
The bottom 2" should be re-cut at an angle immediately
prior to installation.
An auger or hammer drill must be used to create a pilot hole
prior to installation of cottonwood poles. Backfill with very
wet sand or loam, and tamp to ensure no voids develop
around stem.
Other suggested willow and cottonwood harvest guidelines
are found at www.aloterraservices.com
12” min.
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
using a sharp tool. Cuttings shall be long enough to reach
depth of 6” into the groundwater during the driest times of
the year.
3. 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.
E7