Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUN COMMUNITIES - THE FOOTHILLS - FDP220005 - DOCUMENT MARKUPS - ROUND 4 - WETLANDS DOCUMENTS Denver • Durango • Hotchkiss • Idaho www.eroresources.com Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado Prepared for— Sun Foothills Fort Collins LLC 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 200 Southfield, Michigan 47034 (248) 208-2500 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 (303) 830-1188 ERO Project #10761 July 8, 2022 Revised December 2022 Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 i ERO Resources Corporation Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Location ................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Area Description ........................................................................................................ 3 Description of Wetlands and Other Waters ..................................................................................... 3 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Streams and Open Water ................................................................................................................. 6 Wetland Functional Assessment ...................................................................................................... 6 Summary of Hydrological Setting ............................................................................................ 8 Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 8 Wetland Mitigation Plan ...................................................................................................... 10 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Wetland and Riparian Creation ..................................................................................................... 10 Linear Bioretention Features .......................................................................................................... 12 Native Upland and Riparian Seeding ............................................................................................. 12 Soil Testing ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Seeding and Seedbed Preparation ................................................................................................. 14 Tree and Shrub Plantings ............................................................................................................... 15 Maintenance Plan .......................................................................................................................... 16 Performance Standards ................................................................................................................. 16 Monitoring Requirements .............................................................................................................. 17 Long-Term Management Plan ....................................................................................................... 18 Adaptive Management Plan .......................................................................................................... 18 Noxious Weed Management Plan ......................................................................................... 18 List A Species .................................................................................................................................. 19 List B Species .................................................................................................................................. 19 List C Species .................................................................................................................................. 19 Common Nuisance Species ............................................................................................................ 19 Noxious Weed Management ......................................................................................................... 19 Targeted Control Methods for Noxious Weeds ............................................................................. 20 Preconstruction Weed Control ...................................................................................................... 20 Best Management Practices .......................................................................................................... 21 Post-Construction Monitoring and Weed Control ......................................................................... 21 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Preemergence Treatments ............................................................................................................. 22 References ........................................................................................................................... 22 Tables Table 1. Wetland area and Cowardin classification. ....................................................................... 5 Table 2. Variable scores for FACWet method. ................................................................................ 7 Table 3. Functional capacity index scores. ...................................................................................... 7 Table 4. Wetland seed mix – clay and alkali soils ......................................................................... 12 Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ii ERO Resources Corporation Table 5. Riparian seed mix – loamy to clay soils. .......................................................................... 13 Table 6. Upland area seed mix – loamy to clay soils. .................................................................... 13 Table 7. Natural area buffer riparian plantings............................................................................. 14 Table 8. Noxious weeds in the project area. ................................................................................. 19 Table 9. Target species for spring, preconstruction, and weed control. ...................................... 21 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3. Proposed Impacts ........................................................................................................... 11 Appendices Appendix A Photo Log Appendix B Approved Jurisdictional Determination Appendix C Routine Wetland Determination Datasheets Appendix D FACWet Data Sheets Appendix E Project Plan Sheets Appendix F Noxious Weed Fact Sheets ERO Project #10761 1 ERO Resources Corporation Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado July 8, 2022 Revised December 2022 Introduction Sun Foothills Fort Collins LLC (Sun Communities) is proposing the Foothills Fort Collins development on a parcel of land at 6750 College Avenue in Fort Collins (City), Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1; project area). Wetlands occur in a natural depression in the project area and are likely supported by a combination of runoff from adjacent residential properties to the north and west, groundwater, and historical irrigation as part of agricultural activities in and adjacent to the project area. In order to develop the site and meet the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater requirements, it is necessary to impact all of the wetlands that exist in the project area. ERO Resources Corporation (ERO), on behalf of Sun Communities, has prepared this Wetland Mitigation Plan (mitigation plan) to mitigate for the proposed impacts in the project area. This report also documents additional information collected on existing site conditions to inform the mitigation plan and future adaptive management strategies. To mitigate for impacting the wetlands in the project area, Sun Communities is proposing to create a wetland and riparian area in the proposed detention pond, construct linear bioretention facilities to treat stormwater before it enters the detention pond, and establish a natural habitat buffer zone (NHBZ) to enhance the habitat surrounding the proposed wetland and riparian mitigation areas. This mitigation and restoration plan has been designed to provide an equal or better level of wetland and riparian function and wildlife habitat than existed in the project area prior to development. This mitigation and restoration plan would improve wetland and riparian function by creating a diverse mosaic of wetland and riparian areas in the detention pond; increasing vegetative and structural diversity by planting a mixture of seed mixes, trees, and shrubs; and reducing populations of several species on the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s noxious weed list (CDOA 2022). Location The project area is in Section 13, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1). The UTM coordinates of the approximate center of the project area are 494049mE, 4482426mN of NAD 83 Zone 13N. The longitude/latitude of the project area is 105.070224°W/40.492514°N. The elevation of the project area is approximately 5,000 feet above sea level. Photos of the project area are in Appendix A. Project Area Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc.File: 10761 Figure 1.mxd (GS)July 31, 2019 ± Figure 1Vicinity Map6750 College Avenue Wetland Delineation Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2019 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 1,500750Feet LocationPath: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\10761 Figure 1.mxdSection 13, T6N, R69W; 6th PM UTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 494049mE, 4482426mN Longitude 105.070224°W, Latitude 40.492514°N USGS Loveland, CO Quadrangle Larimer County, Colorado Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 3 ERO Resources Corporation Project Area Description The project area is generally southeast of the intersection of South College Avenue and East Trilby Road in Fort Collins, Colorado (Figure 1). The project area is bounded by residential development on all sides, with the majority of the project area occurring in a depression compared to the surrounding area (Figure 2). The project area consists of disturbed uplands, which were historically used for horse grazing and agricultural activities, and is currently disturbed as a result of active prairie dog colonies. Due to the active prairie dog colonies, vegetative cover is low in the majority of the project area and consists primarily of a mixture of nonnative upland species. Dominant species in the uplands include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), kochia (Bassia scoparia), and redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium). A large wetland (Wetland 1) transects the project area and appears to be supported by runoff from surrounding development and by historical irrigation of the uplands south of the project area (Photo 1). The western portion of the wetland consists of a narrow swale with sparse wetland vegetation that has been disturbed by grazing and nearby prairie dogs (Photo 2). Vegetation in the western portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by sporadic patches of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Baltic rush (Juncus arcticus), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). The eastern portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia). Other prevalent species in the eastern portion of Wetland 1 include hairy willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), a List A Colorado Noxious Weed, and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), a List B Colorado Noxious Weed. An upland vegetated swale occurs along the eastern boundary of the project area and appears to periodically convey flows from Wetland 1 to north of the project area (Photo 3). The project area lacks tree and shrub vegetation with the exception of several small Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) trees. Description of Wetlands and Other Waters On December 11, 2019, ERO mapped 4.602 acres of wetlands in the project area (ERO 2020). On January 28, 2020 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determined that the wetlands in the project area are not jurisdictional (Appendix B). On January 24, 2022, ERO redelineated wetlands in the project area to evaluate if conditions have changed since 2019 (2022 site visit), and the details of the 2022 delineation are described in more detail below. Data were collected from various locations in the project area to document the characteristics of uplands and wetlands, and the transition areas between them. All data points (DPs) and routine wetland determination forms are in Appendix C. Table 1 provides a summary of the mapped areas, including Cowardin classification, for each wetland (Cowardin et al 1979). Approximately 0.032 acre of ordinary high water mark associated with the unnamed ditch and 3.418 acres of wetlands occur in the project area (Figure 2). !#* !#* [b !.!.!.!.!. !. !. !. !. !. !.College AvenueTrilby Road Debra DriveKevin DriveRick Drive AutumnRidgeDriveWetland 1 (3.407 ac) Wetland 2 (0.011 ac) Unnamed Ditch (0.032 ac) PZ-1 PZ-2 DP9 DP8 DP7 DP6 DP5DP4DP3 DP2 DP1 DP10 DP11 Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc. File: 10761 Figure 2.mxd (GS) February 17, 2022 ± Figure 2 Existing Conditions 6750 College Avenue Ecological Characterization Study 0 350175FeetPath: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\2022\10761 Figure 2.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, June 11, 2021 !.Data Point [b Potential Red-tailed Hawk Nest !#*Piezometer Location Flow Direction Ditch Swale Upland Vegetated Swale Ordinary High Water Mark (0.032 ac) 2022 Wetland (3.418 ac) 2019 Wetland (5.563 ac) Project Area Boundary Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 5 ERO Resources Corporation Table 1. Wetland area and Cowardin classification. Water/Wetland ID Longitude Latitude Feature Size (acres) Cowardin Classification Wetland 1 105.066801 40.492361 3.407 PEM Wetland 2 105.066399 40.491418 0.011 PEM Total Wetlands 3.418 Unnamed Ditch 105.076114 40.491722 0.032 N/A Wetlands During the 2022 site visit, ERO mapped 3.418 acres of wetlands in the project area (Table 1; Figure 2). The wetlands in the project area are shown as a marsh and pond on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Loveland, Colorado topographic quadrangle. Wetlands occur throughout the center of the project area (Wetland 1) and in a manmade detention pond in the southeastern corner of the project area (Wetland 2; Figure 2). ERO collected data in 11 locations (DP1 through DP11) in the project area to determine if hydrophytic vegetation, hydrophytic soil, or wetland hydrology was present. Wetland 1 Wetland 1 is a depressional palustrine emergent wetland that transects the project area from west to east. Wetland 1 appears to directly receive runoff from the surrounding residential development to the north and west. Wetland 1 connects to a swale along the eastern border of the project area (Figure 2). The western portion of Wetland 1 consists of a narrow swale with sparse wetland vegetation that has been disturbed by grazing and nearby prairie dogs (Photo 2). Vegetation in the western portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by sporadic patches of saltgrass, Baltic rush, and curly dock. Due to the low vegetative cover proximity to disturbed uplands, these are considered low-quality wetlands. The eastern portion of Wetland 1 is dominated by broadleaf cattail (Photo 3). Other prevalent species in the eastern portion of Wetland 1 include hairy willowherb, a List A Colorado Noxious Weed, and Canada thistle, a List B Colorado Noxious Weed. Although vegetative cover is high in the eastern portion of Wetland 1 due to low diversity and prevalence of noxious weeds, this portion of Wetland 1 is considered moderate quality. ERO conducted a FACWet assessment of Wetland 1 discussed in the Wetland Functional Assessment section below. Overall, the size of Wetland 1 has decreased since 2019 in the eastern portion of the project area. This is likely due to the lack of irrigation that previously occurred in the project area. Areas that were previously dominated by wetland vegetation are now dominated by upland vegetation, including Canada thistle, media sandspurry (Spergularia media), and lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) (Photos 4 and 5). It is likely that if left undeveloped, wetlands would continue to decrease in the eastern portion of the project area due to the lack of hydrological support. Wetland 2 Wetland 2 is a palustrine emergent wetland that occurs in a manmade detention pond in the southeastern corner of the project area (Photo 6). Wetland 2 receives water from residential development to the east and south, and water from Wetland 2 flows into a storm drain. Wetland 2 is considered moderate quality due to low vegetative diversity and the high number of cattails. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 6 ERO Resources Corporation Streams and Open Water The project area is within Hydrologic Unit 101900071002. The Unnamed Ditch is not shown on the USGS Loveland, Colorado topographic quadrangle or the National Hydrography Dataset (Figure 2). In the project area, the Unnamed Ditch is a 2- to 4-foot-wide constructed ditch. The Unnamed Ditch originates east of South College Avenue and splits into two laterals south of the project area. Both laterals south of the project area appear to dissipate in the uplands near Robert Benson Lake. No other areas of open water were observed in the project area during the 2019 or 2022 site visit. Wetla nd Functional Assessment An understanding of the ecological functions of the stream and adjacent wetland and riparian areas can assist in the analysis and mitigation of potential impacts. Studies have recognized that riverine and palustrine systems provide particular functions to the environment. These functions are the chemical, physical, and biological processes or attributes vital to the integrity of riparian systems. Researchers recognize a variety of wetland and riparian functions that typically are related to water quality, biodiversity, and hydrological and ecological processes. The functions of wetlands in the project area were evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands (FACWet) – Version 3.0 method developed by the Colorado Department of Transportation (Johnson et al. 2013). The FACWet method is a rapid assessment that analyzes the physical and biological form and function of a wetland relative to its native state, or that of a reference standard wetland of the same type. The area of interest (AOI) for the FACWet is defined as “the spatial envelope which encompasses the entire area potentially impacted (directly or indirectly) by a project’s proposed activities” (Johnson et al. 2013). For this project, the AOI was determined by wetlands and waters that would be directly impacted. The assessment areas are the total area of delineated wetlands and waters of the U.S. in the AOI that could be impacted directly or indirectly. The FACWet method is based on assessing how outside stressors impact eight fundamental variables, and then modeling the resultant effects on natural functions and overall conditions of the assessment site. The eight variables are habitat connectivity, contributing area, water source, water distribution, water outflow, chemical environment, geomorphology, and vegetation structure and complexity. The functions of the wetland are graded on a scale of 1.00 (A – Reference Standard) to below 0.60 (F – Nonfunctioning), similar to an academic grading scale. The FACWet evaluation yields a cumulative Functional Capacity Index (FCI) score for the assessment area, which relates the degree of FACWet state variable impairment with the overall capacity of the assessment area to perform seven key functions relative to its reference standard. • Support of characteristic wildlife habitat • Support of characteristic fish/aquatic habitat • Flood attenuation • Short- and long-term water storage • Nutrient/toxicant removal • Sediment retention/shoreline stabilization Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 7 ERO Resources Corporation • Production export and food chain support The reference standard for wetlands in the project area is wetlands in the same hydrogeomorphic class with no human influence. Because the assessment identifies stressors affecting the wetland functions of a site, the information may be used to develop more effective compensatory wetland mitigation plans. Following is a brief summary of the results of the FACWet assessment in the assessment area. On January 27, 2022, ERO identified ecological stressors in the wetlands and evaluated their effects on the eight FACWet site variables. The functional variable scores for the assessment areas in the survey area are provided in Table 2 and the FCI scores and composite scores are provided in Table 3. Data collected during the FACWet assessments are documented on the datasheets and figures in (Appendix D). Following is a brief summary of the results of the FACWet assessment in each of the assessment areas. Table 2. Variable scores for FACWet method. Variable 6750 College Avenue Wetlands Habitat Connectivity 0.63 Contributing Area 0.77 Water Source 0.63 Water Distribution 0.65 Water Outflow 0.58 Chemical Environment 0.64 Geomorphology 0.72 Vegetation Structure and Complexity 0.68 *1.0 to 0.9 – Reference Standard; <0.9 to 0.8 – Highly Functioning; <0.8 to 0.7 – Functioning; <0.7 to 0.6 – Functioning Impaired; <0.6 – Nonfunctioning. Table 3. FCI scores. Function 6750 College Ave Wetlands Support of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat 0.69 Support of Characteristic Fish/Aquatic Habitat 0.63 Flood Attenuation 0.65 Short- and Long-Term Water Storage 0.62 Nutrient/Toxicant Removal 0.70 Sediment Retention/Shoreline Stabilization 0.68 Production Export/Food Chain Support 0.64 Composite Functional Capacity Indices (FCI) Score 0.66 *1.0 to 0.9 – Reference Standard; <0.9 to 0.8 – Highly Functioning; <0.8 to 0.7 – Functioning; <0.7 to 0.6 – Functioning Impaired; <0.6 – Nonfunctioning. Overall, the wetlands are functioning below a reference standard wetland and are rated as functioning impaired with a score of 0.66 (Table 3). The surrounding residential properties and urban development have affected the existing wetlands in the AOI and act as stressors on its habitat connectivity. In addition, the surrounding development has impacted water quality and caused an increase in stormwater runoff, resulting in increased sedimentation and increased nutrient and toxic materials from urban runoff across the majority of the wetlands in the AOI. The wetlands also have several other stressors, including excess herbivory from surrounding prairie dog colonies, historical grazing, a monoculture of aggressive vegetation, and several List A, List B, and C noxious weeds. The wetland Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 8 ERO Resources Corporation areas scored low due to the high degree of land use changes, changes to the geomorphology of the wetland by a historical berm in the AOI, and changes to the vegetation structure and complexity. Summary of Hydrological Setting The wetlands in the project area appear to be primarily supported by stormwater runoff from adjacent development to the north and west and previously supported by irrigation return flows from within and south of the project area. Groundwater data indicates the wetlands are supported by some groundwater but it is likely not the primary hydrology source for the wetlands, as described in more detail below. The stormwater runoff from the adjacent development to the north and west would continue with the proposed development, and it is likely that stormwater runoff would increase from the proposed development in the project area. Historical imagery indicates the area surrounding Wetland 1 has been primarily farming for more than 50 years, with this area containing a wetland depression since at least 1948, likely due to its location in a natural depression (Historic Aerials 2022). It also appears the project area was previously irrigated until 2016 with water from the Louden Ditch to the south. The project area appears to transition from actively irrigated/tilled in the south-central portion of the project area, to a large prairie dog colony in 2017. Wetland vegetation is likely still present due to the stormwater runoff support and natural depressional setting in the project area. The outlet from Wetland 1 to the ditch along the eastern boundary is higher than the wetland bottom, likely causing any precipitation or runoff into the project area to pond in Wetland 1 along the eastern boundary. Groundwater Monitoring In January 2022, two groundwater piezometers (PZ-1 and PZ-2) were installed in Wetland 1 in the project area to evaluate groundwater levels and to determine if Wetland 1 is supported by groundwater (Figure 2). The piezometers were installed using a hand auger to a total depth of 6 feet below ground surface (bgs) with 2 feet of factory-slotted screen at the bottom of each piezometer. The annulus of each piezometer was filled with silica sand to 2 feet above the top of the screen with the remainder being filled with hydrated granular bentonite to the surface. Each piezometer had a pressure transducer installed about 6 inches off the bottom of the piezometers, at about 5.5 feet bgs. The transducers were programmed to collect a reading every three hours. As of the date of this report, five months of data has been captured on-site. Based on the data, the depths to groundwater in Wetland 1 vary between 0.7 bgs to 4.25 feet bgs. During the winter months, both piezometers were averaging around 3.5 to 4.25 bgs. Both piezometers had increases in water levels in April through June, with PZ-1 averaging closer to 2.52 bgs May through June. PZ-2 had a sharp increase in water levels in early May and then averaged around 2.14 bgs May through June. A hydrograph showing the depth to water bgs in both piezometers is below. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 9 ERO Resources Corporation Graph 1. Hydrograph Showing Depth to Water Below the Ground Surface for Piezometers 1 and 2. Although there has been an increase in water levels this spring and summer, PZ-1, which is located in the middle of Wetland 1, has not reached within one foot of ground surface, which is problematic given the wetland is dominated by cattails which need regular inundation and saturation. PZ-2 has seen water levels reach within one foot of ground surface, however it is also located downstream of a storm sewer outfall and likely sees some spikes during precipitation events. Based on the data it appears that these wetlands are likely not solely supported by groundwater and may be supported by a combination of stormwater runoff, groundwater, and previous irrigation flows. -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 12/30/21 1/19/22 2/8/22 2/28/22 3/20/22 4/9/22 4/29/22 5/19/22 6/8/22 6/28/22Feet below ground surfaceDate Depth to Water Below the Ground Surface PZ-1 PZ-2 Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 10 ERO Resources Corporation Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Objectives The proposed project would impact approximately 3.41 acres of emergent wetlands (Figure 3). The proposed compensatory mitigation for permanent wetland impacts would be at a 1:1 ratio, on-site, and in-kind and would result in the creation of 2.0 acres of wetlands and the creation of 1.41 acres of riparian habitat. This mitigation and restoration plan would also incorporate native seeding in upland and riparian areas adjacent to the proposed wetland mitigation area, as well as native tree and shrub plantings. In addition to the proposed wetland mitigation, Sun Communities is proposing to create 1.41 acres of natural area buffer around the proposed wetland mitigation as described in the Native Upland and Riparian Seeding section below. An ecologist would be on-site throughout the construction of the wetland, riparian, and upland areas to confirm correct elevations, evaluate seeding and planting locations, and document any noxious weed management required. Wetland and Riparian Creation ERO, on behalf of Sun Communities, is proposing a combination of wetland and riparian creation in the detention pond to mitigate for the approximately 3.41 acres of impacts. Approximately 2.0 acres of wetlands and 1.41 acres of riparian habitat would be created in the proposed detention pond to provide wetland mitigation (Appendix E). The combination of wetland and riparian habitat is proposed based on the current understanding of hydrology in the project area. As discussed above, Sun Communities anticipates that as a result of the development, there would be increased stormwater runoff, which would support the proposed wetland mitigation area. However, based on current available data, it does not appear groundwater levels may be sufficient to support 3.41 acres of wetland vegetation. Therefore, it is ERO’s opinion that a mixture of wetland and riparian habitat would be most successful based on hydrologic support in the project area. A hydrosphere approach to the mitigation is proposed. Based on the groundwater data collected, the wetlands would be constructed approximately 1.5 to 2.5 feet below existing elevations in order to receive groundwater support. The riparian areas would gradually slope up from the wetland areas and be approximately 1.5 to less than 0.5 feet below existing elevations. Wetland topsoil contains seeds, roots, rhizomes, tubers, and other fleshy propagules that can aid in revegetation. The top 8 to 10 inches should be scraped with a front-end loader and transported to the site where it will be applied. Ideally, the topsoil should be spread out on the new wetland immediately, to a depth of no more than 6 inches. The created wetlands would be seeded with a wetland seed mix based on the soils present in the existing wetlands (Table 4). The wetland mitigation area would increase biodiversity on-site by seeding the area with a native wetland seed mix. Currently, the wetlands consist of a monoculture of cattails and are surrounded by nonnative and noxious weed species, with little vegetative diversity present. The proposed wetland mitigation area would have a mixture of graminoid- and forb-dominated wetlands, decreasing nonnative and noxious weed cover by seeding with native species and implementing noxious weed control. In addition, a mixture of riparian trees and shrubs would be planted in and adjacent to the wetland mitigation area to create riparian College AvenueTrilby Road Debra DriveKevin DriveRick Drive AutumnRidgeDriveUnnamed Ditch (0.032 ac,Impact 0.032 ac) Wetland 1 (ModerateQuality, 2.864 ac,Impact 2.864 ac) Wetland 2 (ModerateQuality, 0.011 ac,No Impact) Wetland 1 (LowQuality, 0.543 ac,Impact 0.543 ac) Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc. File: 10761 Figure 3.mxd (GS) June 13, 2022 ± Figure 3 Proposed Impacts 6750 College Avenue Ecological Characterization Study 0 350175FeetPath: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\2022\10761 Figure 3.mxdImage Source: Google Earth©, June 11, 2021 Flow Direction Ditch Swale Upland Vegetated Swale Low-Quality Wetland (0.543 ac) Moderate-Quality Wetland (2.875 ac) Ordinary High Water Mark (0.032 ac) Project Area Boundary Permanent Ordinary High Water Mark Impact ().032 ac) Permanent Low-Quality Wetland Impact (0.543 ac) Permanent Moderate-Quality Wetland Impact (2.864 ac) Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 12 ERO Resources Corporation habitat. The proposed design would create a mosaic of wetland and riparian habitat to provide diversity, increase vegetative structure, and improve wetland and riparian habitat and function in the project area. Table 4. Wetland seed mix – clay and alkali soils. Common Name Scientific Name Growth Season Growth Form % Mix Wetland Indicator1 Lb/ac (PLS)2 Grasses and Herbaceous Species Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides Warm Bunch 10 FAC 0.4 Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata Cool Sod 10 OBL 3.3 Inland saltgrass Distichlis spicata Warm Sod 10 FACW 1.2 Nuttall’s alkaligrass Puccinellia nuttalliana Cool Bunch 10 OBL 0.2 Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata Warm Sod 10 FACW 3.0 Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus spp. Cool Bunch 10 FACU 3.8 Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Cool Sod 10 FACU 5.5 Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus 10 OBL 1.6 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 10 OBL 0.1 Creeping spikerush Eleocharis palustris 10 OBL 1.0 TOTAL PLS POUNDS/ACRE 20.1 1 Obligate Wetland (OBL) – Occurs with an estimated 99% probability in wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW) – Estimated 67%–99% probability of occurrence in wetlands. Facultative (FAC) – Equally likely to occur in wetlands and nonwetlands (34%–66% probability). Facultative Upland (FACU) – 67%–99% probability in nonwetlands, 1%–33% in wetlands. 2PLS = Pure Live Seed—if broadcast seeding, double the rate; lb/ac = pounds per acre. Note: Wildflowers species not recommended for clay or alkali soils. Linear Bioretention Features As part of the City’s LID stormwater requirements, Sun Communities would construct two linear bioretention features to treat the stormwater before it enters the wetland and riparian mitigation areas. The constructed linear bioretention features would treat stormwater by filtering sediment as the water travels downward through the soil and would be seeded with an appropriate native seed mix. Native Upland and Riparian Seeding In addition to seeding the proposed wetland mitigation area with the native wetland seed mix (Table 4), Sun Communities is proposing to seed the 1.41 acres of riparian habitat and natural area buffer with a native riparian seed mix (Table 5) and a native upland seed mix (Table 6). Before placing the seed mixes, the soils would be ripped and loosened to 12 inches, and all rocks greater than 3 inches, debris, and large roots would be removed. Riparian seed mix would be drilled or broadcast seeded along the graded side slopes of the detention pond and covered with erosion-control fabric consisting of biodegradable webbing on steeper slopes where needed. Coir mats would be installed along the toe of slope using wood stakes. The riparian area seed mix is a mix of native grass and wildflower species adapted to wet conditions and occasional flood events. The upland seed mix would be installed on gentler slopes that are not prone to flooding and would consist of species adapted to arid environments. In addition to the native plant seeding in the natural area buffer and the proposed wetland and riparian mitigation areas, Sun Communities is proposing to plant 137 native riparian trees and 826 shrubs in the wetland and riparian mitigation areas and natural area (Table 7). Sun Communities is proposing to plant significantly more riparian trees and shrubs than are being proposed as a result of the project. The extra Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 13 ERO Resources Corporation native tree and shrub plantings would help create a mosaic of wildlife habitats that is currently lacking in the project area. Table 5. Riparian seed mix – loamy to clay soils. Common Name Scientific Name Growth Season Growth Form % Mix Lb/ac (PLS1) Grasses Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis Warm Sod 20 1.5 Green needlegrass Nasella viridula Cool Bunch 10 3.3 Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus Warm Bunch 20 0.2 Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula Warm Sod 15 4.7 Switchgrass Panicum virgatum Warm Sod/Bunch 20 3.2 Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Cool Sod 10 5.5 Wildflowers Blanket flower Gaillardia aristata 1 0.5 Louisiana sage Artemisia ludovisciana 1 0.1 Prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera 1 0.1 Showy goldeneye Heliomeris multiflora (aka Viguiera) 1 0.1 Smooth aster Aster laevis 1 0.1 TOTAL POUNDS PLS/ACRE 100 19.3 *PLS = Pure Live Seed—if broadcast seeding, double the rate; lb/ac = pounds per acre. Table 6. Upland area seed mix – loamy to clay soils. Common Name Scientific Name Growth Season Growth Form % Mix Lb/ac (PLS1) Grasses Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis Warm Sod 25 1.8 Buffalo grass Bouteloua dactyloides Warm Sod 10 10.7 Inland saltgrass Disthichlis spicata Warm Sod 5 0.6 Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus Warm Bunch 20 0.2 Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula Warm Sod 20 6.3 Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Cool Sod 15 8.2 Wildflowers Blanket flower Gaillardia artistata 1 0.05 Blue flax Linum lewisii 1 0.4 Pasture sage Artemisia frigida 1 0.01 Prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera 1 0.1 Purple prairieclover Dalea (Petalostemum) purpurea 1 0.3 TOTAL POUNDS PLS/ACRE 100 28.66 *PLS = Pure Live Seed—if broadcast seeding, double the rate; lb/ac = pounds per acre. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 14 ERO Resources Corporation Table 7. Natural area buffer riparian plantings. Scientific Name Common Name Quantity Size Trees Celtis reticulata Netleaf hackberry 38 1” caliper Populus deltoides Plains cottonwood 7 1” caliper Populus angustifolia Narrowleaf cottonwood 6 1” caliper Populus x acuminata Lanceleaf cottonwood 7 1” caliper Salix amygdaloides Peachleaf willow 71 1” caliper Total trees 129 Shrubs Chrysothamnus nauseosus Rubber rabbitbrush 82 5-gallon Prunus virginiana Chokecherry 122 15-gallon Rhus trilobata Threeleaf sumac 50 5-gallon Rosa woodsii Woods’ rose 60 5-gallon Salix exigua Sandbar willow 164 5-gallon Symphoricarpos albus Common snowberry 348 5-gallon Total shrubs 826 Soil Testing Following soil reapplication and final grading, the seedbed of each seeding zone will be sampled for analysis. Soil samples will be collected within the boundaries of the proposed wetland, riparian, and upland seeding zones. The samples will be bagged and delivered to a local soil testing laboratory, agricultural extension service, or university service for analysis. A standard agronomic test (e.g., nutrients, organic matter, and salinity), as well as full textural analyses, should be required for all topsoil fractions imported or salvaged from the project area. The purpose of the soil testing is analyze the soil to determine appropriate seed mixes and to determine if any soil amendments are recommended. It is assumed that no fertilizer will need to be applied to the wetland mitigation area because the wetland topsoil should be preserved. However, if the laboratory determines it would be beneficial, fertilizer will be applied as part of the seeding operation of the wetland mitigation area. It is assumed that soil amendments will be required for upland and riparian soils in the NHBZ. Seeding and Seedbed Preparation Two methods of seeding would be implemented to revegetate the wetland, riparian, and upland zones in the wetland mitigation area and the NHBZ. These methods include broadcast seeding and drill seeding. Broadcast seeding would be used where the reapplied soil moisture regime of each project element is too wet or where slopes are too steep and isolated to permit machinery access. These project elements include the wetland mitigation area and the linear bioretention features and their adjacent slopes where the soil moisture regime is too wet to support machinery. For broadcast seeding instead of the drill seeding method, the specified application rate should be doubled. Refer to the appropriate native seed mixes in Table 4 through Table 6 for species, percentages, and application rates. Drill seeding and associated soils amendments would be applied to upland and riparian seed zones with dry soils and slopes less than 4:1 are created. Drill seeding should occur to ½ inch in depth. Native grass drills should also be equipped with Coulter wheels, adjustable depth bands, and drill row spacing of 7 Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 15 ERO Resources Corporation inches or less. Drilling the seed in two directions perpendicular to one another would improve coverage and establishment. If seeded in only one direction, drilling should follow the contour to reduce a tendency for rilling down furrows. Partial broadcasting with some of the seed prior to or during drilling operations can also improve results, especially for finer seeded species. Before placing the seed mixes, the soils would be ripped and loosened to 12 inches, and all rocks greater than 3 inches, debris, and large roots would be removed. This can be accomplished by disking, ripping, plowing, and rototilling, made more effective by ripping in two directions perpendicular to each other. An effective method to reduce soil compaction in created and restored wetlands is to use a chisel plow to mechanically rip both the topsoil and subsoil layers prior to planting. On steeper slopes, a track hoe with a ripper tooth can be used to decompact soil to the proper depth. Once the subsoil is ripped and the topsoil is replaced, soil amendments should be added, if needed per the soil test and habitat type, then the soil should be tilled to 6 inches, leaving no clod no greater than 3 inches in diameter. Tree and Shrub Plantings In addition to the native plant seeding in the natural area buffer and the proposed wetland and riparian mitigation areas, Sun Communities is proposing to plant 137 native riparian trees and 826 shrubs in the wetland and riparian mitigation areas and natural area buffer (Table 7). The purpose of the tree and shrub plantings would be to increase habitat diversity by adding structural layers that currently do not exist in the project area, which in turn would provide cover and forage for wildlife. The tree and shrub plantings would consist of a variety of upland, riparian, and wetland species adapted for a variety of moisture regimes and would be planted in suitable locations for each species. Shrub species would consist of 5- and 15-gallon container stock, and tree species would consist of 1-inch caliper trees. For the proposed plains cottonwood, sandbar willow, and peachleaf willow tree and shrub plantings, care should be taken to the ensure that the root ball is planted at the elevation of the water table to provide adequate hydrology for the respective plantings. Where necessary, these species would consist of deep plantings to reach the appropriate hydrology. Transmission of Information During construction, the contractor will keep the Ecologist and City informed on milestones and documentation of completed tasks including providing permits, reports, seed tags, proof of equipment cleaning, and herbicide application reports. The Contractor will contact the Ecologist prior to final grading of the wetland and riparian areas, for soil testing, topsoil placement, review of tree and shrub placements prior to installation, and for inspection of planting materials. Additional details can be found in the landscape plans. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 16 ERO Resources Corporation Monitoring Plan In order for wetland and riparian areas to be successful in creating habitat and providing ecological functions, it is necessary to continuously monitor and maintain the areas during early establishment. ERO, on behalf of Sun Communities, has prepared the following monitoring plan in order to implement, maintain, and protect the proposed wetland and NHBZ as part of the project. The purpose of the monitoring will be to document the success of the wetland and riparian areas and to document any concerns and remedial actions necessary for the areas to be successful and meet the success criteria listed below. Monitoring Frequency An ecologist for Sun Communities would review the wetland and riparian mitigation areas and natural buffer area three times a year for at least 3 years: • Spring - This site visit will be completed early in the growing season to identify if any remedial actions are necessary. Noxious weeds will be identified and general cover of each species will be documented. Areas of bare ground where reseeding may be necessary will be recorded, and overall health of trees and shrubs will be noted. • Early Summer – This site visit will be completed early in the growing season to document if remedial actions have occurred and identify if any additional remedial actions are necessary. • Late Summer –This site visit will be completed between mid-July through end of August. This would be the annual site visit to collect detailed data on the success of the mitigation and NHBZ areas, which is described in more detail below. Performance Standards Wetland and riparian mitigation would be considered successful and self-sustaining when the following conditions have been met: • Native seed area will be considered established when 70 percent vegetative cover is reached; • The wetland and riparian areas have less than 10 percent of state listed noxious weed cover; • No bare sports larger than 1 foot square and no rill or erosion concerns; • Trees and shrubs, when including volunteers, will have a survival of at least 80% of what was planted. These mitigation success criteria would allow the City to objectively evaluate if the wetland and riparian mitigation and natural buffer area is developing as proposed and will provide the acreage and function intended. Annual monitoring and reporting on the progress of meeting the success criteria and any remedial measures taken would allow Sun Communities and the City to assess the expected stages of aquatic resource development, identify potential problems, and develop appropriate adaptive management. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 17 ERO Resources Corporation Monitoring Methods During the annual site visit in mid-summer, vegetation will be monitored using the line point intercept method along transects that cross the wetlands and NHBZ. The transects will be randomly established in both the wetland and riparian areas and will allow data to be evaluated relative to location in the mitigation and restoration areas. At least two transects within each community (wetland and riparian) will be established. The transect locations will be recorded with a GPS unit. The species or other item (bare ground, litter, rock) will be recorded at each sampling point. The data from all of the points along the transect will be compiled to obtain a cover percentage for vegetation, rock, bare ground, and litter for each transect. The overall dominant species in each community will also be documented. Permanent photo point locations will be established, and photos taken during each monitoring period. Noxious weeds will be identified, each population will be GPS’d, and the size and density of the population will be documented. In addition, all trees and shrubs will be reviewed for survival and a detailed count of each species survival rate will be documented. Volunteer species will be also be noted. Any erosion or bare areas will be mapped with a GPS unit and any other concerns documented. Maintenance Plan Sun Communities would maintain the wetland and riparian mitigation and natural buffer area until the mitigation success criteria have been met as determined by the City. The ecologist completing each site visit will provide a detailed memo with any remedial actions recommended within two weeks of the site visit. Recommendations for remedial actions will be provided if 1) noxious weeds are over 5% cover within mitigation and restoration areas; 2) significant bare areas are present after the first full growing season; 3) more than 20% of the trees and shrubs appear stressed or dead; or 4) wetland or riparian species are not establishing in the zones as expected. Recommendations will include the time frame recommended for the remedial actions and quantities (replanting of trees and shrubs or re-seeding areas). Any maintenance measures implemented would be reported to the City in the annual monitoring report. Monitoring Requirements Following the late summer site visit, a one page report summarizing the findings would be submitted to the City by August 31st. This would allow for scheduling any remedial actions necessary for the fall. An annual monitoring report will be completed and submitted to the City before December 31 of each year. The annual monitoring report will have the following information: • Project name and address of where the project is located • A discussion of successes, failures, and problems • A discussion of hydrology ensuring success of plantings • Percentage of ground surface area that is vegetated, percentage of the vegetated area that contains wetland species, and a list of prevalent plant species • Maps and/or drawings as needed for illustration Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 18 ERO Resources Corporation • Photographs of the mitigation site (to be taken from the same location each year and submitted with each report) Long-Term Management Plan Sun Communities agrees that once the wetland mitigation and natural buffer areas have been constructed and planted, proper precautions would be taken to prevent domestic animals and human activity from adversely affecting them, and there would be no mowing or other detrimental effects on the wetland and riparian mitigation areas. This includes installation of signs around the mitigation areas to indicate where not to mow or cause other detrimental effects to the mitigation areas. This mitigation plan has been designed to be, to the maximum extent practicable, self-sustaining once the mitigation success standards have been achieved. Sun Communities would be the party responsible for all long-term management of the compensatory mitigation project, including project implementation, long-term management and maintenance, and any required remedial measures. Access to the inlet and outlet structures would be provided without impacting any of the mitigation areas. Removal of any volunteer trees and shrubs that occur within the footprint of the inlet or outlet structures would occur as ongoing maintenance. Adaptive Management Plan Sun Communities proposes that if during the first two years after the initial implementation of mitigation, the site conditions indicate that the success criteria are not likely to be achieved, Sun Communities agrees to undertake remedial actions after consultation with the City. Sun Communities believes this is the most effective process for adaptive management and ensures that any needed corrections in the mitigation project are coordinated with the City and then implemented by Sun Communities. Adaptive management actions could include additional seeding or planting, evaluating hydrologic support in the wetland and riparian mitigation areas to determine the long-term success of each community planted, noxious weed control, or other actions necessary to allow for successful wetland and riparian establishment. Noxious Weed Management Plan During the previous site visits, five noxious weed species were identified in or adjacent to the project area (Table 8). Appendix F contains fact sheets for each species. The observed weed populations occur throughout the eastern portion of Wetland 1 and in the areas disturbed by prairie dog grazing. Although the populations of noxious weeds occur as low-density populations, they are pervasive through large portions of the project area. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 19 ERO Resources Corporation Table 8. Noxious weeds in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name List Growth Form Duration Hairy willowherb Epilobium hirsutum A Forb Perennial Canada thistle Cirsium arvense B Forb Perennial Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum C Grass Annual Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis C Forb Perennial Redstem filaree Erodium cicutarium C Forb Annual List A Species • Hairy willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum) –was observed in the eastern portion of Wetland 1 during the 2019 and 2020 site visits. Hairy willowherb was intermixed between the cattails in the wetlands. List B Species • Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) – populations were observed around the perimeter of the eastern portion of Wetland 1, with denser areas where the wetland vegetation appears to be transitioning. List C Species • Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) – scattered patches of cheatgrass were observed in the disturbed uplands of the project area. • Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) – scattered patches of field bindweed was observed throughout the prairie dog colonies in the project area. • Redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) – scattered patches of redstem filaree was observed throughout the prairie dog colonies in the project area. Common Nuisance Species Other nuisance species such as kochia (Bassia scoparia), Russian thistle (Salsola kali), yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), and feral rye (Secale cereale) may be introduced to the project area during or after construction of the project. While not listed as noxious by CDOA, these species can negatively impact native vegetation and reduce the success of revegetation following construction. These species are not addressed at length in this mitigation plan; however, the general schedule and timing of weed-control treatments described in the following sections are applicable to these species, and personnel conducting weed-control activities should be prepared to identify and control these species if they are observed in the project area. Noxious Weed Management Construction of the project has potential to introduce or spread noxious weeds in the project area. Specific methods for controlling noxious weed species are provided below. To limit the introduction or spread of noxious weeds in the project area, a preconstruction, and post-construction weed management approach is recommended. Weed management strategies for each of the project stages are described in the following sections. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 20 ERO Resources Corporation The weed management plan focuses on noxious weed species that have been observed in or adjacent to the project area. Additional noxious weed species may be present or encroach into the project area at any time, and personnel conducting weed-control activities should be prepared to identify and control any additional species that are observed in the project area. Targeted Control Methods for Noxious Weeds The following control methods are recommended for each of the noxious weeds found in or adjacent to the project area. These recommendations follow the Integrated Weed Management Plan concepts that assess the best methods to control each species (CDOA 2022). All herbicide treatments should follow CDOA recommendations and guidelines (CDOA 2022). Additionally, for all herbicide applications, always read, understand, and follow the label directions. The herbicide label is the law. Important note: Due to a recent court ruling, the Environmental Protection Agency is now regulating pesticide residue in waterways as a discharge of a pollutant regulated under the Clean Water Act. To meet the court order, a general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit has been issued that covers the application of pesticides in or near water. In general, only herbicides rated as safe near water must be used, the licensed applicator must keep records of the herbicide operations. Contractors will submit spray sheets of herbicide applications to Sun Communities. • Hairy willowherb – Spot-spray treatments with herbicide in the pre-bud to flowering stage (June to August). Mechanical removal through digging up the entire rootstalk and any existing rhizomes is an effective follow-up treatment. Follow-up treatments are recommended to remove any resprouts from root fragments that remain in the soil following initial mechanical treatments. If conducting mechanical treatment and the plant is flowering, place the plant in a bag and dispose of the bag in an area where the flower heads will not grow. • Canada thistle – Spot-spray treatment with herbicides can be applied in the rosette and pre- flower (i.e., bolting) growth stages (CDOA 2022). During flowering or seed production, cut off the flower heads, place them in a bag, and dispose of the bag in an area where the flower heads or seeds will not grow. • Cheatgrass – Spot treatment with herbicides can be applied in early spring prior to seed set, or during the fall on new growth. While spot treatment can reduce the spread of cheatgrass, management of this species is usually best addressed through following Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction and revegetating sites as soon as possible following construction. • Field bindweed – Spot treatment with herbicides can be applied after full flower bloom (typically July-August) or in the fall. • Redstem filaree – Spot treatment with herbicides can be applied throughout the rosette stage to early bloom (typically March to May). Preconstruction Weed Control Five noxious weed species have been observed in or adjacent to the project area. The majority of the observed species spread primarily through seed production and produce seeds that remain viable in the soil for many years. Preconstruction treatment of existing noxious weeds can reduce accumulation of Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 21 ERO Resources Corporation weed seeds in the soil and improve success of revegetation following construction. A minimum of one preconstruction weed treatment should occur in the spring to treat the observed weed species. Target species and management notes for spring weed control are described above and summarized in Table 9. Table 9. Target species for spring, preconstruction, and weed control. Common Name Treatment Method Additional Notes Hairy willowherb Mechanical or Chemical Spot-spray treatments with removal of the roots and rhizomes as a follow-up treatment for missed plants. Canada thistle Chemical Do not spray if flowering/seed set, instead cut and bag flower/seed stalk. Leave the remaining plant. Cheatgrass Chemical Do not spray patches greater than 0.001 acre. Field bindweed Chemical Spot spray treatments with herbicides can be applied after full flower bloom or in the fall Redstem filaree Chemical Spot treatment with herbicides can be applied throughout the rosette stage. Due to the scattered distribution of noxious weed patches in the project area, ERO recommends that the personnel conducting weed-control activities walk the entire project area to ensure control of all noxious weeds that may be present in the project area. Best Management Practices Because construction activities may introduce or spread noxious weeds, the construction plans should include standard notes on BMPs to minimize the introduction and spread of noxious weeds. These notes include the following: • Major equipment (e.g., track equipment, rubber tire loaders, and backhoes) will be cleaned by high-pressure air or water spray before being delivered to the project area to avoid introducing undesirable plants and noxious weeds. • Disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as practicable after completion of construction. • Certified weed-free seed should be used for revegetation to prevent introduction of noxious weeds or other undesirable species (e.g., feral rye – Secale cereale) to the project area. • Certified weed-free mulch and borrow material should be used for revegetation. Weed-free straw bales should be used for sediment barriers. • Stockpiled topsoil, imported topsoil, or any other borrow material that is stored on-site should be inspected regularly for the germination of noxious weed species throughout the growing season. Noxious weeds, or common nuisance species, identified in the stockpiles should be controlled following the treatment recommendations described above. Post-Construction Monitoring and Weed Control Monitoring A key to controlling noxious weeds is to monitor the project area for several years to ensure that new populations do not sprout from seeds that may be present or from existing root systems. Any new noxious weed populations that are found should be eliminated as soon as possible to prevent these species from becoming established. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 22 ERO Resources Corporation Following construction and implementation of revegetation activities, the project area should be surveyed for noxious weeds. A minimum of one spring survey and one mid-summer survey should be conducted for several years following construction to monitor for noxious weed populations. Any identified populations should be controlled using the treatment guidelines described above as soon as possible after they are discovered. Preemergence Treatments Applying a preemergence herbicide to revegetation sites can be an effective means of controlling and preventing the establishment of undesirable annual grasses and forbs including cheatgrass, kochia, Russian thistle, and feral rye. Esplanade 200SC® is a preemergence herbicide that can effectively control these species in revegetation sites. Perennial grasses that are established are tolerant of Esplanade 200SC®, and treating revegetation areas with this product may be beneficial during the second year after planting, once desirable species have become sufficiently established. ERO recommends reviewing revegetated areas annually for several years following planting to determine if an application of Esplanade 200SC® is warranted to control annual weed species. References Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDOA). 2022. Noxious Weed Management Program. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Agriculture-Main/CDAG/117408408733. Last accessed January 22, 2022. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services Program. No. FWS/OBS-79/31. ERO Resources Corporation (ERO). 2020. Wetland Delineation Report, 6750 College Avenue, Larimer County, Colorado. Prepared for Sun Communities, Inc. January 13. Historic Aerials. 2022. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Last accessed February 10, 2022. Johnson, B., M. Beardsley, and J. Doran. 2013. The Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands (FACWet) Method – Version 3.0 User Manual. Prepared for Colorado Department of Transportation. April. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix A Photo Log Photo Log Foothills Fort Collins March 16, 2020 and January 24, 2022 Photo 1 - Overview of Wetland 1 in the project area. View is to the east. Photo 2 - Overview of wetlands in the western portion of Wetland 1. View is to the west. Photo Log Foothills Fort Collins March 16, 2020 and January 24, 2022 Photo 3 - Overview of the swale along the eastern border of the project area. View is to the northeast. Photo 4 - Area dominated by Canada thistle where wetland vegetation was previously present. View is to the west. Photo Log Foothills Fort Collins March 16, 2020 and January 24, 2022 Photo 5 - Upland area adjacent to Wetland 1 where wetland vegetation was previously present. View is to the southeast. Photo 6 - Wetland 2 south of the project area. View is to the southeast. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix B Approved Jurisdictional Determination Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix C Routine Wetland Determination Datasheets US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 6750 College Avenue City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 1/24/2022 Applicant/Owner: Sun Communities, LLC State: CO Sampling Point: DP1 Investigator(s): Erin Cubley and Marie Russo Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T6N, R69W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 % Subregion (LRR): G Lat: 40.493519 Long: -105.073296 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Longmont clay NWI Classification: Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Significantly Disturbed? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Naturally Problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Remarks: Delineation completed in January with partial snow cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 0 % = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species % x 1 = 0 FACW species % x 2 = 0 FAC species % x 3 = 0 FACU species % x 4 = 0 UPL species % x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 % (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. % 4. % 5. % 0 % = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Juncus arcticus 60 % Y FACW 2. Elymus trachycaulus 15 % N FACU 3. Cirsium arvense 10 % N FACU 4. Rumex crispus 3 % N FAC 5. Atriplex heterosperma 3 % N UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 6. % 7. % 8. % 9. % 10. % 91 % = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % 0 % = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 9 % Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 2.5YR 2.5//1 88 10YR 4/6 2 C M silty clay 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Type: Depth (inches): Yes No Remarks: Hydric soil identified with F6 indicator. Winter temperatures made digging deeper soil sample challenging. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Yes No Depth (inches) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, etc.), if available: Surface Water present? Water Table present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Hydrology indentified by D5 and D2 indicators. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 6750 College Avenue City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 1/24/2022 Applicant/Owner: Sun Communities, LLC State: CO Sampling Point: DP2 Investigator(s): Erin Cubley and Marie Russo Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T6N, R69W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0 % Subregion (LRR): G Lat: 40.493462 Long: -105.073276 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Longmont Clay NWI Classification: Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Significantly Disturbed? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Naturally Problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Remarks: Delineation completed in January with partial snow cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 0 % = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species % x 1 = 0 FACW species % x 2 = 0 FAC species % x 3 = 0 FACU species % x 4 = 0 UPL species % x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 % (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. % 4. % 5. % 0 % = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Chenopodium album 30 % Y FACU 2. Elymus trachycaulus 45 % Y FACU 3. Cirsium arvense 20 % Y FACU 4. % 5. % Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 6. % 7. % 8. % 9. % 10. % 95 % = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % 0 % = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 % Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation not present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Type: Depth (inches): Yes No Remarks: No soil sampled due to lack of hydric vegetation and hydrology. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Yes No Depth (inches) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, etc.), if available: Surface Water present? Water Table present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: No hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 6750 College Avenue City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 1/24/2022 Applicant/Owner: Sun Communities, LLC State: CO Sampling Point: DP3 Investigator(s): Erin Cubley and Marie Russo Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T6N, R69W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 % Subregion (LRR): G Lat: 40.493421 Long: -105.071335 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Longmont clay NWI Classification: Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Significantly Disturbed? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Naturally Problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Remarks: Delineation completed in January with partial snow cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 2 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 0 % = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species % x 1 = 0 FACW species % x 2 = 0 FAC species % x 3 = 0 FACU species % x 4 = 0 UPL species % x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 % (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. % 4. % 5. % 0 % = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Schoenoplectus pungens 55 % Y OBL 2. Juncus arcticus 40 % Y FACW 3. % 4. % 5. % Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 6. % 7. % 8. % 9. % 10. % 95 % = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % 0 % = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 % Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 3/1 90 5YR 4/6 10 C M/PL silty clay 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Type: Depth (inches): Yes No Remarks: Hydric soil identified with F6 indicator. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Yes No Depth (inches) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, etc.), if available: Surface Water present? Water Table present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Hydrology indentified by C9, D5,D2 indicators. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 6750 College Avenue City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 1/24/2022 Applicant/Owner: Sun Communities, LLC State: CO Sampling Point: DP4 Investigator(s): Erin Cubley and Marie Russo Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T6N, R69W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0 % Subregion (LRR): G Lat: 40.493409 Long: -105.071399 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Longmont Clay NWI Classification: Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Significantly Disturbed? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Naturally Problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Remarks: Delineation completed in January with partial snow cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 0 % = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species % x 1 = 0 FACW species % x 2 = 0 FAC species % x 3 = 0 FACU species % x 4 = 0 UPL species % x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 % (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. % 4. % 5. % 0 % = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Thinopyrum ponticum 75 % Y UPL 2. Kochia scoparia 3 % N FACU 3. % 4. % 5. % Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 6. % 7. % 8. % 9. % 10. % 78 % = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % 0 % = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 22 % Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation not present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP4 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Type: Depth (inches): Yes No Remarks: No soil sampled due to lack of hydric vegetation and hydrology. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Yes No Depth (inches) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, etc.), if available: Surface Water present? Water Table present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: No hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 6750 College Avenue City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 1/24/2022 Applicant/Owner: Sun Communities, LLC State: CO Sampling Point: DP5 Investigator(s): Erin Cubley and Marie Russo Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T6N, R69W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 % Subregion (LRR): G Lat: 40.493414 Long: -105.069746 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Longmont clay NWI Classification: Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Significantly Disturbed? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Naturally Problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Remarks: Delineation completed in January with partial snow cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 0 % = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species % x 1 = 0 FACW species % x 2 = 0 FAC species % x 3 = 0 FACU species % x 4 = 0 UPL species % x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 % (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. % 4. % 5. % 0 % = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Distichlis spicata 70 % Y FACW 2. Schoenoplectus pungens 10 % N OBL 3. Eleocharis palustris 10 % N OBL 4. Typha angustifolia 5 % N OBL 5. % Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 6. % 7. % 8. % 9. % 10. % 85 % = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % 0 % = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15 % Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP5 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-1 10 YR 3/1 95 5 YR 4/6 5 C M clay loam 2-6 10YR 6/2 80 7.5YR 5/8 20 C M clay loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Type: Depth (inches): Yes No Remarks: Hydric soil identified with F3 indicator. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Yes No Depth (inches) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, etc.), if available: Surface Water present? Water Table present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Hydrology indentified by D5 and C9 indicators. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 6750 College Avenue City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 1/24/2022 Applicant/Owner: Sun Communities, LLC State: CO Sampling Point: DP6 Investigator(s): Erin Cubley and Marie Russo Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T6N, R69W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0 % Subregion (LRR): G Lat: 40.493190 Long: -105.069745 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Longmont Clay NWI Classification: Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Significantly Disturbed? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Naturally Problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Remarks: Delineation completed in January with partial snow cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B) 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 0 % = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species % x 1 = 0 FACW species 20 % x 2 = 40 FAC species % x 3 = 0 FACU species % x 4 = 0 UPL species 65 % x 5 = 325 Column Totals: 85 % (A) 365 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.29 3. % 4. % 5. % 0 % = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Thinopyrum ponticum 65 % Y UPL 2. Distichlis spicata 20 % Y FACW 3. % 4. % 5. % Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 6. % 7. % 8. % 9. % 10. % 85 % = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % 0 % = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15 % Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation not present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP6 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Type: Depth (inches): Yes No Remarks: No soil sampled due to lack of hydric vegetation and hydrology. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Yes No Depth (inches) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, etc.), if available: Surface Water present? Water Table present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: No hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 6750 College Avenue City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 1/24/2022 Applicant/Owner: Sun Communities, LLC State: CO Sampling Point: DP7 Investigator(s): Erin Cubley and Marie Russo Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T6N, R69W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) bottom of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 % Subregion (LRR): G Lat: 40.491905 Long: -105.066612 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Cushman Fine Sandy Loam NWI Classification: Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Significantly Disturbed? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Naturally Problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Remarks: Delineation completed in January with partial snow cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 0 % = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species % x 1 = 0 FACW species % x 2 = 0 FAC species % x 3 = 0 FACU species % x 4 = 0 UPL species % x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 % (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. % 4. % 5. % 0 % = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Spergularia media 90 % Y FACU 2. Agrostis gigantea 5 % N FACW 3. % 4. % 5. % Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 6. % 7. % 8. % 9. % 10. % 95 % = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % 0 % = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 % Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation not present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP7 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/1 75 5YR 4/6 25 C M/PL silty clay 7.5YR 9.5/1 40 C M salt! 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Type: Depth (inches): Yes No Remarks: Redox features may be old and not reflect current hydrology at the site. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Yes No Depth (inches) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, etc.), if available: Surface Water present? Water Table present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Hydrology met with B11, but this may be a remnant feature of a previous hydrologic regime. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 6750 College Avenue City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 1/24/2022 Applicant/Owner: Sun Communities, LLC State: CO Sampling Point: DP8 Investigator(s): Erin Cubley and Marie Russo Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T6N, R69W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0 % Subregion (LRR): G Lat: 40.491795 Long: -105.066584 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Cushman Fine Sandy Loam NWI Classification: Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Significantly Disturbed? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Naturally Problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Remarks: Delineation completed in January with partial snow cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 0 % = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species % x 1 = 0 FACW species % x 2 = 0 FAC species % x 3 = 0 FACU species % x 4 = 0 UPL species % x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 % (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. % 4. % 5. % 0 % = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Chenopodium album 95 % Y FACU 2. % 3. % 4. % 5. % Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 6. % 7. % 8. % 9. % 10. % 95 % = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % 0 % = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 % Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation not present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP8 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Type: Depth (inches): Yes No Remarks: No soil sampled due to lack of hydric vegetation and hydrology. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Yes No Depth (inches) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, etc.), if available: Surface Water present? Water Table present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: No hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 6750 College Avenue City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 1/24/2022 Applicant/Owner: Sun Communities, LLC State: CO Sampling Point: DP9 Investigator(s): Erin Cubley and Marie Russo Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T6N, R69W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) bottom of hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1 % Subregion (LRR): G Lat: 40.492777 Long: -105.072292 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Longmont clay NWI Classification: Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Significantly Disturbed? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Naturally Problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Remarks: Delineation completed in January with partial snow cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 0 % = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species % x 1 = 0 FACW species % x 2 = 0 FAC species % x 3 = 0 FACU species % x 4 = 0 UPL species % x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 % (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. % 4. % 5. % 0 % = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Distichlis spicata 80 % Y FACW 2. Spergularia media 3 % N FACU 3. Thinopyrum ponticum 2 % N UPL 4. Chenopodium album 2 % N FACU 5. % Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 6. % 7. % 8. % 9. % 10. % 87 % = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % 0 % = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 13 % Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP9 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-3 10YR 3/2 95 5YR 3/4 5 C M Loam 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Type: Depth (inches): Yes No Remarks: Hydric soil identified with F6 indicator, but could be remnant of past hydrology. Salt present approximately 5" below surface. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Yes No Depth (inches) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, etc.), if available: Surface Water present? Water Table present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: No hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 6750 College Avenue City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 1/24/2022 Applicant/Owner: Sun Communities, LLC State: CO Sampling Point: DP10 Investigator(s): Erin Cubley and Marie Russo Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T6N, R69W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0 % Subregion (LRR): G Lat: 40.493070 Long: -105.072373 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Longmont Clay NWI Classification: Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Significantly Disturbed? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Naturally Problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Remarks: Delineation completed in January with partial snow cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 0 % = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species % x 1 = 0 FACW species % x 2 = 0 FAC species % x 3 = 0 FACU species % x 4 = 0 UPL species % x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 % (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. % 4. % 5. % 0 % = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Thinopyrum ponticum 20 % Y UPL 2. Kochia scoparia 20 % Y FACU 3. Chenopodium album 10 % N FACU 4. Rumex crispus 2 % N FAC 5. % Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 6. % 7. % 8. % 9. % 10. % 52 % = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % 0 % = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 48 % Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation not present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP10 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Type: Depth (inches): Yes No Remarks: No soil sampled due to lack of hydric vegetation and hydrology. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Yes No Depth (inches) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, etc.), if available: Surface Water present? Water Table present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: No hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 6750 College Avenue City/County: Fort Collins Sampling Date: 2/11/2022 Applicant/Owner: Sun Communities, LLC State: CO Sampling Point: DP11 Investigator(s): Erin Cubley and Marie Russo Section, Township, Range: Section 13, T6N, R69W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.) depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0 % Subregion (LRR): G Lat: 40.491905 Long: -105.066612 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Cushman Fine Sandy Loam NWI Classification: Are climate/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks) Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Significantly Disturbed? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Naturally Problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No Remarks: Delineation completed in February with partial snow cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-): 0 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% (A/B) 1. % 2. % 3. % 4. % 0 % = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % Prevalence Index Worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species % x 1 = 0 FACW species % x 2 = 0 FAC species % x 3 = 0 FACU species % x 4 = 0 UPL species % x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 0 % (A) 0 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. % 4. % 5. % 0 % = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Cirsium arvense 60 % Y FACU 2. Lactuca serriola 5 % N FAC 3. Rumex crispus 1 % N FAC 4. % 5. % Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 Dominance Test is >50% 3 Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic 6. % 7. % 8. % 9. % 10. % 66 % = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. % 2. % 0 % = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 34 % Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation not present. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP11 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 2/1 97 7.5YR 4/6 3 C M silty clay 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF 12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Type: Depth (inches): Yes No Remarks: Redox features (F6) may be old and not reflect current hydrologic regime at the site. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Salt Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where not tilled) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Yes No Depth (inches) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections, etc.), if available: Surface Water present? Water Table present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Only one secondary indicator present (D2) and DP does not meet hydrology indicator. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix D FACWet Data Sheets Date of Evaluation: Evaluator Name(s): Geographic Datum Used (NAD 83): Elevation Stream Order:1 X 1:24,000 1:100,000 Other 1: X X Intent of Project: (Check all applicable)Restoration Creation X X Measured 4.59 ac.ac.ac. Estimated ac.ac.ac.ac. Assessment Area (AA) Size (Record Area, check appropriate box. Additional spaces are used to record acreage when more than one AA is included in a single assessment) Characteristics or Method used for AA boundary determination: Wetland Ownership:Private land Notes: Purpose of Evaluation (check all applicable):Mitigation Site Mitigation; Post-construction AA is mapped/delineated wetland habitat and OHWM in project area. This evaluation is being performed at: Total Size of Wetland Involved: (Record Area, Check and Describe Measurement Method Used)Estimated Project Information: Mitigation; Pre-construction (Check applicable box) 4.52 Monitoring Other (Describe) Enhancement Site Coordinates (Decimal Degrees, e.g., 38.85, -104.96): -105.069454, 40.492949 4,975 Project Wetland Potentially Impacted Wetlands USGS Quadrangle Map: Map Scale: (Circle one) Sub basin Name (8 digit HUC): Associated stream/water body name: ADMINISTRATIVE CHARACTERIZATION General Information Cache la Poudre; 10190007 Evaluator's professional position and organization: Tributary to Fossil Creek Site Name or ID: Project Name: 6750 College Avenue Fort Collins ECS Ecologist and Biologist, ERO Resources Corporation H. Snieder Loveland NAD 83 Location Information: Location Information: 6750 College Avenue 11/20/2020 6750 College Avenue 404 or Other Permit Application #: Applicant Name: Sun Communities X X If the above is checked, please describe the original wetland type if discernable using the table below. AA wetland was created from an upland setting. Water source Surface flow Precipitation Unknown Hydrodynamics Unidirectional Bi-directional Wetland Gradient # Surface Inlets # Surface Outlets Geomorphic Setting (Narrative Description. Include approx. stream order for riverine) HGM class Riverine Depressional Lacustrine Water source Surface flow Precipitation Unknown Hydrodynamics Unidirectional Geomorphic Setting (Narrative Description)Previous HGM Class Riverine Depressional Lacustrine Depressional wetlands that receive water from urban runoff Slope Historical Conditions Previous wetland typology 0 1 2 3 >3 Federally threatened or endangered species are KNOWN to occur in the AA? List Below. Groundwater Vertical Notes (include information on the AA's HGM subclass and regional subclass): AA includes delineated wetlands and channel within the OHWM in the project area (AOI). Federally threatened or endangered species are SUSPECTED to occur in the AA? Species of concern according to the Colorado Natural Heritage (CNHP) are known to occur in the AA? Describe the hydrogeomorphic setting of the wetland by circling all conditions that apply. HGM Setting Slope Depressional wetlands that receive water from urban runoff 0 - 2% 2-4% 4-10% >10% Over-bank 0 1 2 3 >3 ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION 1 Groundwater Vertical AA wetland has been subject to change in HGM classes as a result of anthropogenic modification Organic soils including Histosols or Histic Epipedons are present in the AA (i.e., AA includes core fen habitat). Project will directly impact organic soil portions of the AA including areas possessing either Histosol soils or histic epipedons. Organic soils are known to occur anywhere within the contiguous wetland of which the AA is part. AA wetland maintains its fundamental natural hydrogeomorphic characteristics Current Conditions HYDROGEOMORPHIC SETTING The wetland is a habitat oasis in an otherwise dry or urbanized landscape? Special Concerns Other special concerns (please describe) The site is located within a potential conservation area or element occurrence buffer area as determined by CNHP? Check all that apply See attached map Water Regime Other Modifiers % AA Persistent Palustrine SubclassSystem ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION 2 US FWS habitat classification according as reported in Cowardin et al. (1979). 100B Vegetation Habitat Description Palustrine ClassSubsystem EM Site Map Draw a sketch map of the site including relevant portions of the wetland, AA boundary, structures, habitat classes, and other significant features.Scale: 1 sq. = Hypersaline(7) ; Eusaline(8); Mixosaline(9); Fresh(0); Acid(a); Circumneutral(c); Alkaline/calcareous(i); Organic(g); Mineral(n); Beaver(b); Partially Drained/ditched(d); Farmed(f); Diked/impounded(h); Artificial Substrate(r); Spoil(s); Excavated(x) Floating vascular; Rooted vascular; Algal; Persistent; Non-Persistent; Broad-leaved deciduous; Needle-leaved evergreen; Cobble - gravel; Sand; Mud; Organic Examples Temporarily flooded(A); Saturated(B); Seasonally flooded(C); Seas.-flood./sat.(E); Semi-Perm. flooded(F); Intermittently exposed(G); Artificially flooded(K); Sat./semiperm./Seas. (Y); Int. exposed/permenant(Z) Lacustrine Palustrine Littoral; Limnoral Palustrine Rock Bot. (RB) Uncon Bottom(UB) Aquatic Bed(AB) Rocky Shore(RS) Uncon Shore(US) Emergent(EM) Shrub-scrub(SS) Forested (FO) Riverine Lower perennial; Upper perennial; Intermittent 0.62 1. On the aerial photo, create a 500 m perimeter around the AA. Condition Grade <0.6 F Non- functioning Notes: ERO estimated a historical wetland and riparian of 12.47 acre. ERO estimated a existing wetland and riparian of 5.63 acre. Total wetland/riparian habitat still present is 45.11%. Less than 25% of the historical wetland habitat area within the HCE still in existence (more than 70% of habitat lost). Wetland losses are absent or negligible or there is no evidence to suggest the native landscape within the HCE historically contained other wetland habitats More than 80% of historical wetland habitat area within the HCE is still present (less than 20% of habitat area lost). 80 to 60% of historical wetland habitat area within the HCE is still present (20% to 40% of habitat area lost). <0.7 - 0.6 D Functioning Impaired <0.9 - 0.8 Variable 1: Habitat Connectivity This sub-variable is a measure of how isolated from other naturally-occurring wetlands or riparian habitat the AA has become as the result of habitat destruction. To score this sub-variable, estimate the percent of naturally-occurring wetland/riparian habitat that has been lost (by filling, draining, development, or whatever means) within the 500-meter-wide belt surrounding the AA. This zone is called the Habitat Connectivity Envelope (HCE). In most cases the evaluator must use best professional judgment to estimate the amount of natural wetland loss. Historical photographs, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, hydric soil maps can be helpful in making these determinations. Floodplain maps are especially valuable in river-dominated regions, such as the Front Range urban corridor. Evaluation of landforms and habitat patterns in the context of perceivable land use change is used to steer estimates of the amount of wetland loss within the HCE. 2. The area within this perimeter is the Habitat Connectivity Envelope (HCE). Variable Score Rules for Scoring: 4. Outline the historical extent of wetland and riparian habitats (i.e., existing natural wetlands plus those that have been destroyed). Scoring Guidelines 5. Calculate the area of existing and historical wetlands. Divide the area of existing wetland by the total amount of existing and historical wetland and riparian habitat, and determine the variable score using the guidelines below. Enter sub-variable score at the bottom of p.2 of the Habitat Connectivity data form. 3. Within the HCE, outline the current extent of naturally occurring wetland and riparian habitat. Do not include habitats such as excavated ponds or reservoir induced fringe wetlands. - Use your knowledge of the history of the area and evident land use change to identify where habitat losses have occurred. Additional research can be utilized to increase the accuracy of this estimate including consideration of floodplain maps, historical aerial photographs, soil maps, etc. Less than 60 to 25% of historical wetland habitat area within the HCE is still present (more than 40 to 75% of habitat area lost). 1.0 - 0.9 The Habitat Connectivity Variable is described by two sub-variables – Neighboring Wetland and Riparian Habitat Loss and Barriers to Migration and Dispersal. These sub-variables were treated as independent variables in FACWet Version 2.0. The merging of these variables makes their structure more consistent with that of other composite variables in FACWet. The new variable configuration also makes this landscape variable more accurately reflect the interactions amongst aquatic habitats in Colorado’s agricultural and urbanized landscapes, which have a naturally low density of wetlands. The two Habitat Connectivity Sub-variables are scored in exactly the same manner as their FACWet 2.0 counterparts, as described below. The Habitat Connectivity Variable score is simply the arithmetic average of the two sub-variable scores which is entered on the second page of the Variable 1 data form. If there is little or no wetland or riparian habitat in the Habitat Connectivity Envelope (defined below), then Sub-variable 1.1 is not scored. SV 1.1 - Neighboring Wetland and Riparian Habitat Loss (Do not score if few or no wetlands naturally exist in the HCE) A Reference Standard B Highly Functioning <0.8 - 0.7 C Functioning x X X Condition Grade SV 1.1 Score 0.62 SV 1.2 Score 0.63 Variable 1: Habitat Connectivity p. 2 SV 1.2: Migration/Dispersal Barriers Add SV 1.1 and 1.2 scores and divide by two to calculate variable score <0.6Stressors = artificial barriersStressors Tertiary Roadway Bike Path Aquatic Organism Barriers Aerial exposure F Non-functioning <0.7 - 0.6 Variable Score <0.9 - 0.8 <0.8 - 0.7 1.0 - 0.9 B Highly Functioning Barriers impeding migration/dispersal between the AA and up to 33% of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat highly permeable and easily passed by most organisms. Examples could include gravel roads, minor levees, ditches or barbed-wire fences. More significant barriers (see "functioning category below) could affect migration to up to 10% of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat. Variable 1 Score Barriers to migration and dispersal retard the ability of many organisms/propagules to pass between the AA and up to 66% of wetland/riparian habitat. Passage of organisms and propagules through such barriers is still possible, but it may be constrained to certain times of day, be slow, dangerous or require additional travel. Busy two-lane roads, culverted areas, small to medium artificial water bodies or small earthen dams would commonly rate a score in this range. More significant barriers (see "functioning impaired" category below) could affect migration to up to 10% of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat. C Functioning AA is essentially isolated from surrounding wetland/riparian habitat by impermeable migration and dispersal barriers. An interstate highway or concrete-lined water conveyance canal are examples of barriers which would generally create functional isolation between the AA and wetland/riparian habitat in the HCE. A Reference Standard No appreciable barriers exist between the AA and other wetland and riparian habitats in the HCE; or there are no other wetland and riparian areas in the HCE. Scoring Guidelines D Functioning Impaired Barriers to migration and dispersal preclude the passage of some types of organisms/propagules between the AA and up to 66% of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat. Travel of those animals which can potential negotiate the barrier are strongly restricted and may include a high chance of mortality. Up to 33% of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat could be functionally isolated from the AA. 0.63 This sub-variable is intended to rate the degree to which the AA has become isolated from existing neighboring wetland and riparian habitat by artificial barriers that inhibit migration or dispersal of organisms. On the aerial photograph, identify the man-made barriers within the HCE that intercede between the AA and surrounding wetlands and riparian areas, and identify them by type on the stressor list. Score this variable based on the barriers’ impermeability to migration and dispersal and the amount of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat they affect. Rules for Scoring: 1. On the aerial photo, outline all existing wetland and riparian habitat areas within the HCE. This includes naturally occurring habitats, as well as those purposefully created or induced by land use change. 2. Identify artificial barriers to dispersal and migration of organisms within the HCE that intercede between the AA and surrounding habitats. Mark the stressors present with a check in the first column and describe the general nature, severity and extent of each. List additional stressors in empty rows at the bottom of the table and explain. 3. Considering the composite effect of all of identified barriers to migration and dispersal (i.e., stressors), assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. Comments/description Ditch or Aqueduct Trilby Road to the north, College Ave to the west Secondary Highway Major Highway Artificial Water Body Railroad Fence Urban Development Agricultural Development Fence north of AA 100 Precent of AA with Buffer 26-50% of AA with Buffer 0-25% of AA with Buffer <0.9 - 0.8 <0.8 - 0.7 <0.7 - 0.6 <0.6 70-90% of AA with Buffer Non-functioning Functioning Impaired Functioning Variable 2: Contributing Area The AA's Contributing Area is defined as the 250-meter-wide zone surrounding the perimeter of the AA. This variable is a measure of the capacity of that area to support characteristic functions of high quality wetland habitat. Depending on its condition, the contributing area can help maintain wetland condition or it can degrade it. Contributing Area condition is evaluated by considering the AA's Buffer and its Surrounding Land Use. Buffers are strips or patches of more-or-less natural upland and/or wetland habitat more than 5m wide. Buffers are contiguous with the AA boundary and they intercede between it and more intensively used lands. The AA Buffer is characterized with three sub-variables: Buffer Condition, Buffer Extent, and Average Buffer Width. The Surrounding Land Use Sub-variable considers changes within the Contributing Area that limit its capacity to support characteristic wetland functions. Many of the acute, on-site effects of land use change in the Contributing Area are specifically captured by Variables 3 - 8. Rules for Scoring: 1. Delimit the Contributing Area on an aerial photograph as the zone within 250 meters of the outer boundary of the AA. 2. Evaluate and then rate the Buffer Condition sub-variable using the scoring guidelines. Record the score in the cell provided on the datasheet. 3. Indicate on the aerial photograph zones surrounding the AA which have ≥5m of buffer vegetation and those which do not. 4. Calculate the percentage of the AA which has a Buffer and record the value where indicated on the data sheet. 5. Rate the Buffer Extent Sub-variable using the scoring guidelines. 6.Determine the average Buffer width by drawing a line perpendicularly from the AA boundary to the outer extent of the buffer habitat. Measure line length and record its value on the data sheet. Repeat this process until a total of 8 lines have been sampled. 7. Calculate the average buffer width and record value on the data form. Then determine the sub-variable score using the scoring guidelines. 8.Score the Surrounding Land Use sub-variable by recording land use changes on the stressor list that affect the capacity of the landscape to support characteristic wetland functioning. 9. Enter the lowest of the three Buffer sub-variable scores along with the Surrounding Land Use Sub-variable score in the Contributing Area Variable scoring formula at the bottom of p. 2 of the data form. The Contributing Area Variable is the average of the two sub-variable scores. 51-69% of AA with Buffer 1.0 - 0.9 90 - 100% of AA with Buffer SV 2.2 - Buffer Extent SV 2.2 - Buffer Extent 1.00 Highly Functioning Reference Standard 1.0 - 0.9 <0.9 - 0.8 Buffer Condition Scoring Guidelines Buffer vegetation is predominately native vegetation, human-caused disturbance of the substrate is not evident, and human visitation is minimal. Common examples: Wilderness areas, undeveloped forest and range lands. Buffer vegetation may have a mixed native-nonnative composition, but characteristic structure and complexity remain. Soils are mostly undisturbed or have recovered from past human disturbance. Little or only low-impact human visitation. Buffers with higher levels of substrate disturbance may be included here if the buffer is still able to maintain predominately native vegetation. Common examples: Dispursed camping areas in national forests, common in wildland parks (e.g. State Parks) and open spaces. Reference Standard Highly Functioning Condition Grade SV 2.1 - Buffer Condition SV 2.1 - Buffer Condition Score % Buffer Scoring Guidelines 0.65 Subvariable Score Condition Class <0.8 - 0.7 <0.7 - 0.6 <0.6 Buffer vegetation is substantially composed of non-native species. Vegetation structure may be somewhat altered, such as by brush clearing. Moderate substrate distrbance and compaction occurs, and small pockets of greater disturbance may exist. Common examples: City natural areas, mountain hay meadows. Buffer vegetation is substantially composed of non-native species and vegetation structure has been strongly altered by the complete removal of one or more strata. Soil disturbance and the intensity of human visitation are generally high. Common examples: Open lands around resource extraction sites (e.g., gravel mines), clear cut logging areas, ski slopes. Buffer is nearly or entirely absent. Functioning Functioning Impaired Non-functioning Subvariable Score Record measured buffer widths in the spaces below and average. 20.79 67.36 228.5 33.65 76.88 250 11.04 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 X X X X Biological Resource Extraction No appreciable land use change has been imposed Surrounding Landscape. ( <0.6 The Surrounding Landscape is essentially comletely developed or is otherwise a cause of severe ecological stress on wetland habitats. Commercial developments or highly urban landscapes generally rate a score of less than 0.6. Land use changes within the Surrounding Landscape has been substantial including the a moderate to high coverage (up to 50%) of impermeable surfaces, bare soil, or other artificial surfaces; considerable in-flow urban runoff or fertilizer-rich waters common. Supportive capacity of the land has been greatly diminished but not totally extinguished. Intensively logged areas, low- density urban developments, some urban parklands and many cropping situations would commonly rate a score within this range. Buffer Score (Lowest score) 0.82 20.72 <0.7 - 0.6 Intensive Agriculture Orchards or Nurseries Livestock Grazing Variable Score Dams/impoundments <0.8 - 0.7 C Functioning Condition Grade Scoring Guidelines A Reference Standard 1.0 - 0.9 <0.9 - 0.8 Some land use change has occurred in the Surrounding Landscape, but changes have minimal effect on the the landscape's capacity to support characteristic aquatic functioning, either because land use is not intensive, for example haying, light grazing, or low intensity silviculture, or more substantial changes occur in approximately less than 10% of the area. Rural Residential Urban Parklands Residential development 250 117 Variable 2: Contributing Area (p. 2) Urban Stressors Stressors = Land Use ChangesPhysical Resource Extraction Artificial Water body SV 2.4 - Surrounding Land Use Score Line # SV 2.3 - Average Buffer Width Robert Benson Lake to the south 0.82 SV 2.3 - Average Buffer Width Score Buffer Width (m) <0.7 - 0.6 Trilby Road to the north College Ave to the West Condition Grade Catalog and characterize land use changes in the surrounding landscape and score.0.72 Average Buffer width is 31-100m Average Buffer width is 0-5mNon-functioning <0.8 - 0.7 SV 2.4 - Surrounding Land Use Functioning <0.6 Functioning Impaired 0.77Variable 2 Score+ D Functioning Impaired F Non-functioning Surrounding Land Use ) ÷ = 1.0 - 0.9 Surrounding Landscape has been subjected to a marked shift in land use, however, the land retains much of its capacity to support natural wetland function and it is not an overt source of pollutants or sediment. Moderate-intensity land uses such as dry-land farming, urban "green" corridors, or moderate cattle grazing would commonly be placed within this scoring range. Transportation Corridor Comments/description Dryland Farming Industrial/commercial Urban development B Highly Functioning Average Buffer width is 6-30m Avg. Buffer Width (m) Average Buffer width is 190-250m Average Buffer width is 101-189m<0.9 - 0.8 Highly Functioning Reference Standard 6 Buffer Width Scoring GuidelinesSubvariable Score T Scoring rules:XXXXXCondition Grade 0.63 Culverts or Constrictions Constrictions alongs ponds upstream Groundwater pumping Draw-downs Storm Drain/Urban Runoff Increased Drainage Area Mining/Natural Gas Extraction Point Source (urban, ind., ag.) From adjancent development Impermeable Surface Runoff Irrigation Return Flows Non-point Source Adjacent residential development has increased hydrology Variable Score Actively Managed Hydrology Comments/description Ditches or Drains (tile, etc.) Dams Diversions B Highly Functioning F Non- functioning Unnatural drawdown events common and of mild to moderate intensity and/or duration; or uniform depletion up to 50%; or moderate to substantial reduction of peak flows or capacity of water to perform work. Water source diminished enough to threaten or extinguish wetland hydrology in the AA. Variable 3 Score <0.9 - 0.8 <0.8 - 0.7 Frequency, duration or magnitude of unnaturally high-water great enough to change the fundamental characteristics of the wetland. Unnatural drawdown events occasional, short duration and/or mild; or uniform depletion up to 20%; or mild to moderate reduction of peak flows or capacity of water to perform work. Depletion Unnatural drawdown events minor, rare or non- existent, very slight uniform depletion, or trivial alteration of hydrodynamics. C Functioning Unnatural drawdown events occur frequently with a moderate to high intensity and/or duration; or uniform depletion up to 75%; or substantial reduction of peak flows or capacity of water to perform work. Wetlands with actively managed or wholly artificial hydrology will usually score in this range or lower. A Reference Standard Variable 3: Water Source This variable is concerned with up-gradient hydrologic connectivity. It is a measure of impacts to the AA's water source, including the quantity and timing of water delivery, and the ability of source water to perform work such as sediment transport, erosion, soil pore flushing, etc. To score this variable, identify stressors that alter the source of water to the AA, and record their presence on the stressor list. Stressors can impact water source by depletion, augmentation, or alteration of inflow timing or hydrodynamics. This variable is designed to assess water quantity, power and timing, not water quality. Water quality will be evaluated in Variable 7. Stressors <0.6 <0.7 - 0.6 Augmentation Unnatural high-water events minor, rare or non- existent, slight uniform increase in amount of inflow, or trivial alteration of hydrodynamics. Occasional unnatural high-water events, short in duration and/or mild in intensity; or uniform augmentation up to 20%; or mild to moderate increase of peak flows or capacity of water to perform work. Common occurrence of unnatural high-water events, of a mild to moderate intensity and/or duration; or uniform augmentation up to 50%; or moderate to substantial increase of peak flows or capacity of water to perform work. Common occurrence of unnatural high-water events, some of which may be severe in nature or exist for a substantial portion of the growing season; or uniform augmentation more than 50% or capacity of water to perform work. Wetlands with actively managed or wholly artificial hydrology will usually score in this range or lower. 1. Use the stressor list and knowledge of the watershed to catalog type-specific impairments of the AA’s water source. Mark the stressors present with a check in the first column and describe the general nature, severity and extent of each. List additional stressors in empty rows at the bottom of the table and explain. 2. Considering the composite effect of stressors on the water source, rate the condition of this variable with the aid of the scoring guidelines. D Functioning Impaired Transbasin Diversion 1.0 - 0.9 T Scoring rules:XAlteration of Water Source XXCondition Grade Historical active floodplain areas are almost never wetted from overbank flooding, and/or groundwater infiltration is effectively cut off. Less than 10% of the AA is affected by in situ hydrologic alteration; or more widespread impacts result in less than a 2 in. (5 cm) change in mean growing season water table elevation. Natural active floodplain areas flood on a normal recurrence interval. No evidence of alteration of flooding and subirrigation duration and intensity. Dikes/Levees/Berms Non-riverine Riverine Little or no alteration has been made to the way in which water is distributed throughout the wetland. AA maintains a natural hydrologic regime. <0.8 - 0.7 B Highly Functioning<0.9 - 0.8 D Functioning Impaired C Functioning In channel-adjacent area, periods of drying or flooding are common; or uniform shift in the hydrograph near root depth. 33 to 66% of the AA is affected by in situ hydrologic alteration; or more widespread impacts result in a 6 in. (15 cm) or less change in mean growing season water table elevation. Water table behavior must still meet jurisdictional criteria to merit this rating. Adjacent to the channel, unnatural periods of drying or flooding are the norm; or uniform shift in the hydrograph greater than root depth. Channel-adjacent areas have occasional unnatural periods of drying or flooding; or uniform shift in the hydrograph less than typical root depth. Between 10 and 33% of the AA is affected by in situ hydrologic alteration; or more widespread impacts result in a 4 in. (5 cm) or less change in mean growing season water table elevation. Artificial Banks/Shoreline Variable Score Weirs 0.65Variable 4 Score Comments/description Increased runoff due to urban development <0.7 - 0.6 <0.6 Ditches Ponding/Impoundment Culverts Variable 4: Water Distribution Ponding likely occurs by artificial berm constructed north of AA 2. Considering all of the stressors identified, assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. In most cases, the Water Source variable score will set the upper limit for the Water Distribution score. This variable is concerned with hydrologic connectivity within the AA. It is a measure of alteration to the spatial distribution of surface and groundwater within the AA. These alterations are manifested as local changes to the hydrograph and generally result from geomorphic modifications within the AA. To score this variable, identify stressors within the AA that alter flow patterns and impact the hydrograph of the AA, including localized increases or decreases to the depth or duration of the water table or surface water. Because the wetland’s ability to distribute water in a characteristic fashion is fundamentally dependent on the condition of its water source, in most cases the Water Source variable score will define the upper limit Water Distribution score . For example, if the Water Source variable is rated at 0.85, the Water Distribution score will usually have the potential to attain a maximum score of 0.85. Additional stressors within or outside the lower end of the AA effecting water distribution (e.g., ditches and levees) will reduce the score from the maximum value. 1. Identify impacts to the natural distribution of water throughout the AA and catalog them in the stressor table. Road Grades Stressors More than 66% of the AA is affected by hydrologic alteration which changes the fundamental functioning of the wetland system, generally exhibited as a conversion to upland or deep water habitat. F Non-functioning Hardened/Engineered Channel Channel Incision/Entrenchment Enlarged Channel A Reference Standard1.0 - 0.9 Diversions Sediment/Fill Accumulation T Scoring rules: Alteration of Water Source XXCondition Grade <0.6 High- or low-water outflows are moderately affected, mild alteration of intermediate level outflow occurs; or hydrodynamics moderately affected. F Non-functioning 0.58 Road Grades Culverts Diversions Constrictions Variable Score Variable 5 Score Confined Bridge Openings B Highly Functioning The natural outflow regime is profoundly impaired. Down-gradient hydrologic connection severed or nearly so. Alterations may cause widespread unnatural persistent flooding or dewatering of the wetland system. Scoring Guidelines Stressors have little to no effect on the magnitude, timing or hydrodynamics of the AA water outflow regime.A Reference Standard D Functioning Impaired C Functioning Dikes/Levees Channel Incision/Entrenchment <0.8 - 0.7 <0.7 - 0.6 1.0 - 0.9 <0.9 - 0.8 Outflow at all stages is moderately to highly impaired resulting in persistent flooding of portions of the AA or unnatural drainage; or outflow hydrodynamics severely disrupted. High- or low-water outflows are mildly to moderately affected, but at intermediate ("normal") levels flow continues essentially unaltered in quantity or character. Variable 5: Water Outflow Stressors Comments/description Outflow is confined to a ditch north of the AA 1. Identify impacts to the natural outflow of water from the AA and catalog them in the stressor table. 2.Considering all of the stressors identified, assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. Take in to account the cumulative effect of stressors on the wetland's ability to export water and water-borne materials. In most cases the Water Source variable will set the upper limit for the Water Outflow score. Ditches Weirs This variable is concerned with down-gradient hydrologic connectivity and the flow of water and water-borne materials and energy out of the AA. In particular it illustrates the degree to which the AA can support the functioning of down-gradient habitats. It is a measure of impacts that affect the hydrologic outflow of water including the passage of water through its normal low- and high-flow surface outlets, infiltration/groundwater recharge, and the energetic characteristics of water delivered to dependent habitats. In some cases, alteration of evapotranspiration rates may be significant enough of a factor to consider in scoring. Score this variable by identifying stressors that impact the means by which water is exported from the AA. To evaluate this variable focus on how water, energy and associated materials are exported out of the AA and their ability it support down-gradient habitats in a manner consistent with their HGM (regional) subclass. Because the wetland’s ability to export water and materials in a characteristic fashion is to a very large degree dependent the condition of its water source, as with the Water Distribution variable, in most cases the Water Source variable score will define the upper limit Water Outflow score . Hardened/Engineered Channel Artificial Stream Banks Comments Dredging/Excavation/Mining XXGrading Compaction Plowing/Disking Excessive Sedimentation Dumping Hoof Shear/Pugging Aggregate or Mineral Mining Sand Accumulation Channel Instability/Over Widening Excessive Bank Erosion Channelization Reconfigured Stream Channels Artificial Banks/Shoreline Beaver Dam Removal Substrate Embeddedness Lack or Excess of Woody Debris Condition Grade Scoring Rules: 1. Identify impacts to geomorphological setting and topography within the AA and record them on the stressor checklist.GeneralThis variable is a measure of the degree to which the geomorphic setting has been altered within the AA. Changes to the surface configuration and natural topography constitute stressors. Such stressors may be observed in the form of fill, excavation, dikes, sedimentation due to absence of flushing floods, etc. In riverine systems, geomorphic changes to the stream channel should be considered if the channel is within the AA (i.e, small is size). Alterations may involve the bed and bank (substrate embeddedness or morphological changes), stream instability, and stream channel reconfiguration. Geomorphic changes are usually ultimately manifested as changes to wetland surface hydrology and water relations with vegetation. Geomorphic alterations can also directly affect soil properties, such as near-surface texture, and the wetland chemical environment such as the redox state or nutrient composition in the rooting zone. In rating this variable, do not include these resultant effects of geomorphic change; rather focus on the physical impacts within the footprint of the alteration within the AA – For example, the width and depth of a ditch or the size of a levee within the AA would describe the extent of the stressors. The secondary effects of geomorphic change are addressed by other variables. All alterations to geomorphology should be evaluated including small-scale impacts such as pugging, hoof sheer, and sedimentation which can be significant but not immediately obvious. Border of the AA has histroically been graded Stressors Variable 6: Geomorphology <0.8 - 0.7 Scoring GuidelinesVariable Score 1.0 - 0.9 A Reference Standard <0.9 - 0.8 2.Considering all of the stressors identified, assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. Channels OnlyFill, including dikes, road grades, etc.Area along the northern border of the AA is diked and bermed 0.64Variable 6 Score Topography essentially unaltered from the natural state, or alterations appear to have a minimal effect on wetland functioning and condition. Patch or microtopographic complexity may be slightly altered, but native plant communities are still supported. Alterations to topography result in small but detectable changes to habitat conditions in some or all of the AA; or more severe impacts exist but affect less than 10% of the AA. B Highly Functioning Changes to AA topography may be pervasive but generally mild to moderate in severity. May include patches of more significant habitat alteration; or more severe alterations affect up to 20 % of the AA. D Functioning Impaired At least one important surface type or landform has been eliminated or created; microtopography has been strongly impacted throughout most or all of the AA; or more severe alterations affect up to 50% of the AA. Evidence that widespread diminishment or alteration of native plant community exist due to physical habitat alterations. Most incidentally created wetland habitat such as that created by roadside ditches and the like would score in this range or lower. C Functioning <0.6 F Non- functioning <0.7 - 0.6 Pervasive geomorphic alterations have caused a fundamental change in site character and functioning, commonly resulting in a conversion to upland or deepwater habitat. Scoring rules: X X X X X X X X X CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List Reservoir/Power Plant Discharge Industrial Discharge Mechanical Soil Disturbance CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List Unnatural Saturation/Desaturation Cumulative Watershed NPS 0.68 -If the AA is part of a water body that is recognized as impaired or recommended for TMDL development for one of the factors, then score that sub-variable 0.65 or lower. 3. For each sub-variable, determine its score using the scoring guideline table provided on the second page of the scoring sheet. Scoring sub-variables is carried out in exactly the same way as normal variable scoring. Nearby Industrial Sites 0.63 0.72 0.65 0.73 No shading evident Livestock Excessive Temperature Regime SV 7.3 Toxic contamination/ pH Storm Water Runoff Cumulative Watershed NPS SV 7.4 Temperature Lack of Shading Road Drainage/Runoff Point Source Discharge Dumping/introduced Soil Metal staining on rocks and veg. Acid Mine Drainage SV 7.5 Soil chemistry/ Redox potential Historical horse pasture Fish/Wildlife Impacts Vegetation Impacts Artificial berm Urbanized landscape Urbanized landscape CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List Recent Chemical Spills Agricultural Runoff Agricultural Runoff Urbanized landscape SV 7.2 Sedimentation/ Turbidity Cumulative Watershed NPS Excessive Turbidity Fine Sediment Plumes Nearby Construction Site Excessive Deposition Excessive Erosion Nearby development 1. Stressors are grouped into sub-variables which have a similar signature or set of causes. Variable 7: Water and Soil Chemical Environment Comments 2. Use the indicator list to identify each stressor impacting the chemical environment of the AA. This variable concerns the chemical environment of the soil and water media within the AA, including pollutants, water and soil characteristics. The origin of pollutants may be within or outside the AA. Score this variable by listing indicators of chemical stress in the AA. Consider point source and non-point sources of pollution, as well as mechanical or hydrologic changes that alter the chemical environment. Because water quality frequently cannot be inferred directly, the presence of stressors is often identified by the presence of indirect indicators. Five sub-variables are used to describe the Water and Soil Chemical Environment: Nutrient Enrichment/Eutrophication/Oxygen; Sedimentation/Turbidity; Toxic Contamination/pH; Temperature; and Soil Chemistry and Redox Potential. Utilization of web-based data mining tools is highly recommended to help inform and support variable scores. 4. Transcribe sub-variable scores to the following variable scoring page and compute the sum. Excessive Algae or Aquatic Veg. SV 7.1 Nutrient Enrichment/ Eutrophication/ Oxygen (D.O.) Agricultural Runoff Septic/Sewage Livestock Cumulative Watershed NPS 5. The lowest sub-variable score sets the letter grade range. The composite of sub-variables influences the score within that range. Urbanized landscape Sub- variable Score Sub-variable Stressor Indicator CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List ++++= The factor scores sum >3.0 but ≤3.5 Single Factor F Non- functioning 0.72 A Reference Standard Any single factor scores ≥ 0.8 but < 0.9 The factor scores sum < 3.0 Any single factor scores ≥ 7.0 but < 0.8 Composite Score <0.9 - 0.8 < 0.6 Temperature0.63 0.65 <0.7 - 0.6 Any single factor scores ≥ 0.6 but <0.7 C Functioning Toxic contamination/pHVariable 7: Water and Soil Chemical Environment p.2 D Functioning Impaired B Highly Functioning 1.0 - 0.9 The factor scores sum >4.0 but ≤4.5 The factor scores sum >3.5 but ≤ 4.0 No single factor scores < 0.9 The factor scores sum > 4.5 <0.8 - 0.7 Sub-variable Scoring Guidelines Variable Score Condition GradeNutrient enrichment/Eutrophication/Oxygen (D.O.)C Functioning <0.9 - 0.8 <0.8 - 0.7 Sedimentation/TurbidityInput each sub-variable score from p. 1 of the V7 data form and calculate the sum. Use the table to score the Chemical Environment Variable circling the applicable scoring rules. Scoring Rules Scoring Guidelines Stress indicators not present or trivial.A Reference Standard <0.6 Variable Score Condition Class <0.7 - 0.6 D Functioning Impaired 1.0 - 0.9 B Highly Functioning 0.72 Stress indicators scarcely present and mild, or otherwise not occurring in more than 10% of the AA. Stress indicators present at mild to moderate levels, or otherwise not occurring in more than 33% of the AA. Stress indicators present at moderate to high levels, or otherwise not occurring in more than 66% of the AA Stress indicators strongly evident throughout the AA at levels which apparently alter the fundamental chemical environment of the wetland system Variable 7 Score Any single factor scores < 0.6 3.41 F Non-functioning Sum of Sub-variable Scores0.680.72 0.73 Soil chemistry/Redox potential Aquatic x x x x ====Condition Grade = Veg. Layer Sub- variable Score 0.680.82 0.72 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CURRENT COVERAGE AND REFERENCE/EXPECTED See sub-variable scoring guidelines on following page Reference/Expected % Cover of Layer 0.10 0.25 90.00 90.35 <0.6 Sub-variable 8 Scoring Guidelines: Variable Score Variable 8 Score D Functioning Impaired <0.7 - 0.6 C Functioning<0.8 - 0.7 Stressors present with enough intensity to cause significant changes in the character of vegetation, including alteration of layer coverage, structural complexity and species composition. The vegetation layer retains its essential character though. AA's with a high proportion of non-native grasses will commonly fall in this class. Stress related change should generally be less than 33% for any given attribute (e.g., 33% cover of invasive, 33% reduction in richness or cover) if the stressor is evenly distributed throughout the wetland. Stress related change could be as much as 66% for a given attribute if stressors are confined to patches comprising less than 25% of the wetland. F Non- functioning Stressor intensity severe enough to cause profound changes to the fundamental character of the vegetation layer. Stress-related change should generally be less than 66% for any given attribute (e.g., 66% cover of invasive, 66% reduction in richness or cover) if the stressor is evenly distributed throughout the wetland. Stress related change could be as much as 80% of a given attribute if stressors are confined to patches comprising less than 50% of the wetland. Vegetation layer has been completely removed or altered to the extent that is no longer comparable to the natural structure, diversity and composition. Scoring Guidelines Based on the list of stressors identified above, rate the severity of their cumulative effect on vegetation structure and complexity for each vegetation layer. Stressors present at intensity levels sufficient to cause detectable, but minor, changes in layer composition. Stress related change should generally be less than 10% for any given attribute (e.g., 10% cover of invasive, 10% reduction in richness or cover) if the stressor is evenly distributed throughout the wetland. Stress related change could be as high as 33% for a given attribute if stressors are confined to patches comprising less than 10% of the wetland. A Reference Standard B Highly Functioning Stressors not present or with an intensity low enough as to not detectably affect the structure, diversity or composition of the vegetation layer.1.0 - 0.9 <0.9 - 0.8 0.68 Variable 8: Vegetation Structure and Complexity p. 2 61.462 x Noxious Weeds Exotic/Invasive spp. Tree Harvest Brush Cutting/Shrub Removal Livestock Grazing X +++= ÷ 0.08 0.18 61.20 Over Saturation Weighted Sub-variable Score Dewatering Historical grazing Prairie dogs Variable 8: Vegetation Structure and Complexity 4. Record the Reference Standard or expected percent coverage of each vegetation layer to create the sub-variable weighting factor. The condition of predominant vegetation layers has a greater influence on the variable score than do minor components. 5. Enter the percent cover values as decimals in the row of the stressor table labeled " Reference/expected Percent Cover of Layer". Note, percentages will often sum to more than 100% (1.0). 1. Determine the number and types of vegetation layers present within the AA. Make a judgment as to whether additional layers were historically present using direct evidence such as stumps, root wads or historical photographs. Indirect evidence such as local knowledge and expert opinion can also be used in this determination. 2. Do not score vegetation layers that would not normally be present in the wetland type being assessed. Rules for Scoring: This variable is a measure of the condition of the wetland's vegetation relative to its native state. It particularly focuses on the wetland's ability to perform higher-order functions such as support of wildlife populations, and influence primary functions such as flood-flow attenuation, channel stabilization and sediment retention. Score this variable by listing stressors that have affected the structure, diversity, composition and cover of each vegetation stratum that would normally be present in the HGM (regional) subclass being assessed. For this variable, stressor severity is a measure of how much each vegetation stratum differs functionally from its natural condition or from the natural range of variability exhibited the HGM subclass or regional subclass. This variable has four sub- variables, each corresponding to a stratum of vegetation: Tree Canopy; Shrub Layer; Herbaceous Layer; and Aquatics. 6. Determine the severity of stressors acting on each individual canopy layers, indicating their presence with checks in the appropriate boxes of the stressor table. The difference between the expected and observed stratum coverages is one measure of stratum alteration. 7. Determine the sub-variable score for each valid vegetation layer using the scoring guidelines on the second page of the scoring sheet. Enter each sub-variable score in the appropriate cell of the row labeled "Veg. Layer Sub-variable Score". If a stratum has been wholly removed score it as 0.5. 8. Multiply each layer's Reference Percent Cover of Layer score by its Veg. Layer Sub-variable scores and enter the products in the labled cells. These are the weighted sub-variable scores. Individually sum the Reference Percent Cover of Layer and Weighted Sub- variables scores. Current % Coverage of Layer x Tree Shrub Herb Cattails 3. Estimate and record the current coverage of each vegetation layer at the top of the table. Stressor Multiple List A List B and C species Cattails X x 9. Divide the sum of "Veg. Layer Sub-variable Scores" by the total coverage of all layers scored. This product is the Variable 8 score. Enter this number in the labeled box at the bottom of this page. Vegetation Layers 5 90 Comments xLoss of Zonation/Homogenization Excessive Herbivory Mowing/Haying Herbicide Scoring Procedure: Functional Capacity Indices Function 1 -- Support of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat V1connect +V2CA +(2 x V8veg) 0.63 +0.77 +1.36 +++=2.76 ÷ 4 = Function 2 -- Support of Characteristic Fish/aquatic Habitat (3 x V3source)+(2 x V4dist)+(2 x V5outflow)+V6geom +V7chem 1.89 +1.30 +1.16 +0.64 +0.72 +=5.71 ÷ 9 = Function 3 -- Flood Attenuation V2CA +(2 x V3source)+(2 x V4dist)+(2 x V5outflow)+V6geom +V8veg 0.77 +1.26 +1.30 +1.16 +0.64 +0.68 =5.81 ÷ 9 = Function 4 -- Short- and Long-term Water Storage V3source +(2 x V4dist)+(2 x V5outflow)V6geom 0.63 +1.30 +1.16 +0.64 ++=3.73 ÷ 6 = Function 5 -- Nutrient/Toxicant Removal (2 x V2CA)+(2 x V4dist)+V6geom V7chem 1.54 +1.30 +0.64 +0.72 ++=4.20 ÷ 6 = Function 6 -- Sediment Retention/Shoreline Stabilization V2CA +(2 x V6geom)+(2 x V8veg) 0.77 +1.28 +1.36 +++=3.41 ÷ 5 = Function 7 -- Production Export/Food Chain Support V1connect +(2 x V5outflow)+V6geom +V7chem +(2 x V8veg) 0.63 +1.16 +0.64 +0.72 +1.36 +=4.51 ÷ 7 = Variable 3:Buffer & Landscape Context4. Divide the total functional points achieved by the functional points possible. The typical number of total points possible is provided, however, if a variable is added or subtracted to FCI equation the total possible points must be adjusted Habitat Connectivity (Connect) Water Distribution (Dist) Water Source (Source) Contributing Area (CA) 0.63 0.65Variable 4: Geomorphology (Geom) Vegetation Structure and Complexity (Veg) 0.77 FACWet Score Card Variable 1: Variable 2: 5. Calculate the Composite FCI, by adding the FCI scores and dividing by the total number of functions scored (usually 7). 6. If scoring is done directly in the Excel spreadsheet, all values will be transferred and calculated automatically. VARIABLE SCORE TABLE 1. Transcribe variable scores from each variable data sheet to the corresponding cell in the variable score table. 0.68 0.72HydrologyVariable 5: 2. In each Functional Capacity Index (FCI) equation, enter the corresponding variable scores in the equation cells. Do not enter values in the crossed cells lacking labels. 3. Add the variable scores to calculate the total functional points achieved for each function.Abiotic and Biotic HabitatVariable 6: Variable 7:Chemical Environment (Chem) 0.64 4.62 Variable 8: Total Functional Points 0.63 Composite FCI Score Divide by the Number of Functions Scored 0.58Water Outflow (Outflow) Sum of Individual FCI Scores 0.64 ÷ 7 0.68 FCI 0.66 0.69 0.63 0.65 0.62 0.70 Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc. File: 10761 FACWet W1.mxd (WH) November 2, 2020 ± Figure 1 Functional Wetland Assessment 6750 College Avenue Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2019 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 700350feet Habitat Connectivity Envelope (500 m) Historical Riparian Habitat Image Source: Maxar Vivid©, March 17, 2019Path: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\FACWet\10761 FACWet W1.mxd Prepared for: Sun Communities, Inc. File: 10761 FACWet W1.mxd (WH) November 10, 2020 ± Figure 2 Functional Wetland Assessment 6750 College Avenue Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2019 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 700350feet Assessment Area Habitat Connectivity Envelope (500 m) Contributing Area (250 m) Existing Artificial Riparian Habitat Existing Natural Wetland and Riparian Habitat Historical Riparian Habitat Landuse Low Impact Grazing Rural Development Urban Development Area of Interest Migration/ Dispersal Barrier Image Source: Maxar Vivid©, March 17, 2019Path: P:\10700 Projects\10761 - 6750 College Ave Wetland Delineation\Maps\FACWet\10761 FACWet W1.mxd Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix E Project Plan Sheets Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Restoration Plan Foothills Fort Collins Larimer County, Colorado ERO Project #10761 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix F Noxious Weed Fact Sheets List A Key ID Points 1. Bright pink flowers have 4 notched petals, 4 sepal, & 8 stamens. 2. Leaves mostly opposite & sessile on the stem. 3. Seeds have white, silky tuft in long seedpod. 4. Entire plant covered with soft hairs. H airy willow-herb (Epilobium hirsutum) is a perennial, semi- aquatic plant also known by the names “codlins and cream” and “European fireweed.” The plant grows up to 6 feet tall and can reproduce via seeds or rhizomes. Each mature plant can produce up to 70,000 seeds, which can be wind-dispersed thanks to a tuft of long white hairs on the oblong and flattened seeds. The entire plant is covered with fine, soft hairs. Leaves are mostly opposite, lanceolate to oblong-lanceolate in shape, with sharply serrated margins. Leaves attach directly to the stem, are often clasping at the base, and grow from 2-5 inches long and 1/2-1 inch wide. The showy pink flowers are 3/4 inch across with four notched petals, four sepals, and eight stamens. Flowers occur in racemes in the upper leaf axils and are present in July and August. H airy willow-herb is native to Eurasia and North Africa and was likely introduced to the U.S. as an ornamental. Some reports suggest it may have also arrived in ship ballast. The plant is typically found in water-logged soils and easily tolerates inundation. It does not tolerate shaded areas during seedling establishment, but once established can be somewhat shade-tolerant. Infestations can clog small waterways and displace native vegetation, increasing bank erosion and degrading wildlife habitat. Hairy willow-herb spreads easily into undisturbed areas and can form monotypic stands in wetland areas. Seeds require a soil pH for 5.5 or higher for germination and are thought to remain viable for several years in the soil. Site monitoring should be carried out for at least ten years after the last flowering adult plants have been eliminated. T he key to effective control of hairy willow-herb is to prevent establishment through proper land management. Maintain healthy riparian corridors, wetlands and rights-of-way, and continually monitor your property for new infestations. Be aware that there are several native species of Epilobium in Colorado. Make sure to identify plants correctly before taking action to control them. H airy willow-herb is a designated “List A” species in the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. It is required to be eradicated wherever found in the state. The following page provides management recommendations. For more information please visit: www.colorado.gov/ ag/weeds or call the State Weed Coordinator at the Colorado Department of Agriculture, at 303-869- 9034. Hairy willow-herb Epilobium hirsutum ƒ‹”›™‹ŽŽ‘™ǦŠ‡”„ †‡–‹Ƥ…ƒ–‹‘ƒ†ƒƒ‰‡‡– p© w© w©© ww© wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.ntw.ntw.ntw.ntwwwww.ntwwwwttlphtlphtlphpttlphoooooto.otooto.otooooooo comomcoco gy© Ki© ©© KiKiKiKiKiKKKKiKngs ngnngngnngsgggsgsgsngsngnngnng CounCounCounouounounCounounounounCounCounounuounoououuuotytytytyty, tty WAWAWAAWWA FrFrFrFrFrFrFrFrFrFrFrFrFrrFrFFrFrFrFFrFrFrFFFrFrFrFrFrFrrFrFrFrFrFrFrFrFrFFrFrFFrFrrrFrFrFrFFFFrFFFFFronononononononononononononononononononononoonnonononoonoononononnoooononononoonoononoont t t ttt tt ttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttttt RaRaRaRaRaRaRaRaRaRaaRaRaRaRaRaRaRaRaRaRaaRaRaRaRaaRaRaRaaaRaRaRaaRaaRaRaRaRaRaRaRaRaRaaRaRaRaaRRaRaaRaRaaaRRaaRaRngngngngngngngngngngnngngngngnggngngngngngngngnggnggngngngngngnggngngngngngnngngngggngggnggge e eeeeeee eeeee eeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee inininininininininninininnininninnininiinnnininininnininnnnnnnnnninfefefefeffeffefefefefefefefefefeffefefeffefeefefeefefefefefefeffeffeeffeffffffeffststststststststststststsstststststttststttstttttsttttsttstatatataatatatatatatatatatatattatataatatatatatatatatataataatatataataatatattattatattttttatioioioioioioioioioioioioioioiiioioioioioioioioioooioiooiioiooioioonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn inininininininininininininininininnnininininininininnnnnninnnnnnnnnnnnn aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggolololololololololololololololololololololoololollooololololoooooooooooof f f fffff f f f f fffff f ff f fff fffffffffffffffff f ffffff f cocococococococococococococococococococococococococococoocoococococococcococccocococoocoocururuurururururururururururururururururururururuurururururruruururrururuururrurrrrrrrrrruururrsesesesesesesseseseseseeseseseseseseeseseseseseeseeseeseseseseeseeesseseseseseeeesseeseseseseseeeeeseseseessesessse wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetteteteteteetteteteteteeeeeetteetlalalalalaaaalalaalalalalaaalalalallaalalalalaaalalalalalalalaalaalaalalalalaaalaalaaaaaaaaalaaaandndndnndndndndndndndndndndndndndnddndndndndndndndnddndndnddnddndndndnddndndddndddnddndnddndnddnndndddd................. Rev. 2/15 Colorado Department of Agriculture - Conservation Services 305 Interlocken Parkway ”‘‘Ƥ‡Ž†ǡ͔͔͖͕͜ ȋ͔͗͗Ȍ͚͜͝Ǧ͔͔͗͝ ™™™Ǥ…‘Ž‘”ƒ†‘Ǥ‰‘˜Ȁƒ‰Ȁ™‡‡†• List A    Small infestations can be dug by hand and should be performed prior to seed set. It is very important to remove the entire rootstalk and any existing rhizomes of the plant to avoid regrowth from root fragments. Composting of this species is not advised, and vegetation should be destroyed on site or contained in heavy-duty –”ƒ•Š„ƒ‰•ƒ††‹•’‘•‡†‘ˆ‹ƒŽƒ†ƤŽŽǤ    Biocontrol agents are not included in the prescribed management plans by the State. Eradication is the management objective for all List A’s. No biocontrol agents for hairy willow-herb is available. For more information on the use of biocontrol agents to control weeds in Colorado, please contact the Palisade Insectary of the Colorado Department of Agriculture at 970-464-7916.  Prevent the establishment of new infestations by minimizing disturbance and seed dispersal, eliminating seed production, and maintaining healthy native communities. Survey regularly for noxious weeds on your property. Be sure to completely remove any seedlings or newly established plants by hand pulling the plants as early as possible in their development. ”‡˜‡–‹‰–Š‡•’”‡ƒ†‘ˆ–Š‹•’Žƒ–‹‘Ž‘”ƒ†‘‹•…”—…‹ƒŽ•‹…‡‹–‹•‘™–‘‡š‹•–‘Ž›‹ƒˆ‡™ Ž‘…ƒ–‹‘•ǡ‘•–Ž›‹–Š‡‡˜‡”‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒƒ”‡ƒǤ‘‹–‘”‹‰›‘—”Žƒ†ˆ‘”‹ˆ‡•–ƒ–‹‘•ǡ‡•’‡…‹ƒŽŽ› Žƒ†•‡ƒ”™ƒ–‡”ƒ††‘™•–”‡ƒ‘ˆ‘™•‹–‡•ǡ…ƒ•‹‰‹Ƥ…ƒ–Ž›ƒ‹†‹†‡–‡…–‹‰–Š‡•’‡…‹‡• ‡ƒ”Ž›ƒ†‡”ƒ†‹…ƒ–‹‰‹–“—‹…Ž›Ǥ ‡”„‹…‹†‡–‹‹‰‹•‹’‘”–ƒ–‹…‘–”‘ŽŽ‹‰–Š‹••’‡…‹‡•Ǥ ‘ŽŽ‘™ –‹‹‰”‡…‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•…Ž‘•‡Ž›Ǥ Hairy willow-herb Epilobium hirsutum –‡‰”ƒ–‡†‡‡†ƒƒ‰‡‡–‡…‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•        Imazapyr* (Habitat**, Arsenal** for aquatic use) 0.5-1% v/v (0.6-1.3 oz. ima- zapyr/gal water) + 0.25% v/v non-ionic surfactant Apply evenly over leaf surface “to wet,” not dripping. Treat in the pre-bud to flowering stage. (June to August). Glyphosate (Rodeo**, AquaMaster**, Aqua- Neat** for aquatic Up to 5% v/v (Up to 6.4 oz. glyphosate/gal Apply evenly over leaf surface “to wet,” not dripping. Treat in the pre-bud to flowering stage. (June to August; at least half of foliage should still be green). ‘–‡ǣȗ ƒœƒ’›”‹•ˆ‘”—•‡‹‘”ƒ‡–ƒŽ‘”–—”ˆ•‡––‹‰•Ǥ ȗȗŠ‡•‡Š‡”„‹…‹†‡’”‘†—…–•ƒ”‡‘Ǧ•‡Ž‡…–‹˜‡ƒ†™‹ŽŽ‹ŽŽƒ›˜‡‰‡–ƒ–‹‘…‘–ƒ…–‡†Ǥ Other species herbicide recommendations: https://goo.gl/VFPCUv    ǣ The following are recommendations for herbicides that can be applied along riparian and wetland areas to treat hairy willow- herb. Rates are approximate and based on smaller infestation, spot-spraying techniques. Please read label for exact rates. Always read, understand, and follow the label directions. The herbicide label is the LAW! gy g g© Ki© K©ng Cng Countounty, Wy, Washishngtogtogtonn, Nn, Noxiooxoxioxioooxus WWWWus WWeeeed eed eed ProgProgrogProramramramra List B Key ID Points 1. Cluster of 1-5 white to purple flowers on a stem. 2. Floral bracts are spineless. 3. Small flowers that are 1 cm in diameter. 4. Perennial, rhizomatous plant with spiny, oblong, green leaves. C anada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is a non-native, deep-rooted perennial that spreads by seeds and aggressive creeping, horizontal roots called rhizomes. Canada thistle can grow 2 to 4 feet in height. The leaves are oblong, spiny, bright green, and slightly hairy on the undersurface. Unlike other noxious biennial thistles which have a solitary flower at the end of each stem, Canada thistle flowers occur in small clusters of 1 to 5 flowers. They are about 1 cm in diameter, tubular shaped, and vary from white to purple in color. C anada thistle emerges from its root system from late April through May. It flowers in late spring and throughout the summer. It produces about 1,000 to 1,500 seeds per plant that can be wind dispersed. Seeds survive in the soil for up to 20 years. Additionally, Canada thistle reproduces vegetatively through its root system, and quickly form dense stands. Each fragmented piece of root, 0.25 inch or larger, is capable of forming new plants. The key to controlling Canada thistle is to eliminate seed production and to reduce the plant’s nutrient reserves in its root system through persistent, long-term management. C anada thistle is one of the most troublesome noxious weeds in the U.S. It can infest diverse land types, ranging from roadsides, ditch banks, riparian zones, meadows, pastures, irrigated cropland, to the most productive dryland cropland. Large infestations significantly reduce crop and cattle forage production and native plant species. It is a host plant to several agricultural pests and diseases. Canada thistle prefers moist soils, but it can be found in a variety of soil types. It has been found at elevations up to 12,000 feet. E ffective Canada thistle control requires a combination of methods. Prevention is the most important strategy. Maintain healthy pastures and rangelands, and continually monitor your property for new infestations. Established plants need to be continually stressed. Management options become limited once plants begin to produce seeds. Details on the back of this sheet can help to create a management plan compatible with your site ecology. C anada thistle is designated as a “List B” species as described in the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. It is required to be either eliminated, contained, or suppressed depending on the local infestations. For more information visit www. colorado.gov/ag/weeds and click on the Noxious Weed Program link or call the State Weed Coordinator at the Colorado Department of Agriculture, Conservation Services Division, (303) 869-9030.Canada thistle Cirsium arvenseƒƒ†ƒŠ‹•–Ž‡ †‡–‹Ƥ…ƒ–‹‘ƒ†ƒƒ‰‡‡– 2013 Quarter Quad Survey Colorado Department of Agriculture - Conservation Services 305 Interlocken Parkway ”‘‘Ƥ‡Ž†ǡ͔͔͖͕͜ ȋ͔͗͗Ȍ͚͜͝Ǧ͔͔͗͝ ™™™Ǥ…‘Ž‘”ƒ†‘Ǥ‰‘˜Ȁƒ‰Ȁ™‡‡†• List B –‡‰”ƒ–‡†™‡‡†ƒƒ‰‡‡–‹•‹’‡”ƒ–‹˜‡ˆ‘”‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡ƒƒ†ƒ–Š‹•–Ž‡…‘–”‘ŽǤŠ‹•™‡‡†‡‡†• –‘„‡…‘–‹—ƒŽŽ›•–”‡••‡†ǡˆ‘”…‹‰‹––‘‡šŠƒ—•–”‘‘–—–”‹‡–•–‘”‡•ǡƒ†‡˜‡–—ƒŽŽ›†‹‡Ǥ‘™‹‰ ‘”‰”ƒœ‹‰…ƒ„‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‡†—’™‹–ŠŠ‡”„‹…‹†‡ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘Ǥ˜‘‹†Šƒ†Ǧ’—ŽŽ‹‰ƒ†–‹ŽŽ‹‰™Š‹…Š…ƒ •–‹—Žƒ–‡–Š‡‰”‘™–Š‘ˆ‡™’Žƒ–•Ǥ Canada thistle Cirsium arvense –‡‰”ƒ–‡†‡‡†ƒƒ‰‡‡–‡…‘‡†ƒ–‹‘•        Aminopyralid (Milestone) 5-7 oz/acre or 1 teaspoon/gal water Apply in spring until flowering and/or to fall regrowth. Add 0.25% v/v non-ionic surfactant (equivalent to 0.32oz/ gal water or 1 qt/100 gal water). Can also add chlorsulfuron (Telar) at 1 oz/acre to the mix. Aminoclopyrachlor + chlorsulfuron (Perspective) 5.5 oz product/acre + 0.25% v/v non-ionic surfactant Apply in spring from rosette to flower bud stage and/or fall regrowth. Important: Applications greater than 5.5 oz product/acre exceeds the threshold for selectivity. DO NOT treat in the root zone of desirable trees and shrubs. Not permitted for use in the San Luis Valley. Clopyralid + triclopyr (Prescott; others) 3 pints product/acre or 1.25 oz/gal water Apply in spring until flowering and/or fall regrowth. Add 0.25% v/v non-ionic surfactant. CHEMICAL The table below includes recommendations for herbicides that can be applied to rangeland and some pastures. Treatments may be necessary for an additional 1 to 3 years because of root nutrient stores. Always read, understand, and follow the label directions. MECHANICAL Due to Canada thistle’s extensive root system, hand-pulling and tilling create root fragments and stimulate the growth of ‡™’Žƒ–•Ǥ‘™‹‰…ƒ„‡‡ơ‡…–‹˜‡‹ˆ†‘‡‡˜‡”›͕͔–‘͖͕ days throughout the growing season. Combining mowing with herbicides will further enhance Canada thistle control. BIOLOGICAL Cattle, goats, and sheep will graze on Canada thistle when plants are young and succulent in the spring. Follow up grazing with a fall herbicide application. Insects are available, and provide limited control. Currently, collection and distribution methods for Canada thistle rust (Puccinia punctiformisȌƒ”‡„‡‹‰”‡Ƥ‡†Ǥ ‘”‘”‡ information on Canada thistle biocontrol, contact the Colorado Department of Agriculture - Palisade Insectary at (970) 464-7916. CULTURAL Prevention is the best control strategy. Maintain healthy pastures , riparian areas, and rangelands. Prevent bare ground caused by overgrazing, and continually monitor your property for new infestations. Establishment of select grasses can be an effective control. List C Key ID Points 1. Downy leaf blades, sheaths, ligules 2. Glumes are unequal size, lemmas are downy 3. One-sided panicle that droops, red-purple during seed set & senescence 4. Fibrous roots C heatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.) is a winter annual grass in the Poaceae family, also known as downy brome. Mature plants reach up to 24 inches tall. The stems are smooth but the leaf blades and sheath are hairy (downy). The ligules are fringed, short and membra- nous. The culms range from five to 90 cm long, can be prostrate or vertical, and have fine short hairs. Its fibrous roots can be up to 60 inches long, but the majority of root biomass is within first 12 inches of the soil surface. Roots are efficient at absorbing soil moisture, allowing cheatgrass to grow quickly early in season, while other plants are still dormant. Green up can occur twice per season. Cheatgrass has an unique spectral signature during seed set and senescence when it turns reddish purple. During these shoulder growing season events, it is easily detectable from other vegetation with satellite imagery. The flower is a simple one-sided panicle that characteristically flops over and hangs, branches and is open. Spikelets are usually terminal. Usually there are five to many florets; it has perfect flow- ers. The upper and lower glumes are usu- ally unequal in length and shorter than florets; the lower glume ranges from 4 to 14 mm in length and is one veined. The upper glume is three-veined. The plant disarticulates above the glumes. The lemmas are usually downy, narrowly lanceolate with sharp tips and about 9 to 12 mm long. Usually there are five to many lemmas. Awns are usually pres- ent and range from 10 to 18 mm long. It is a prolific seed producer, capable of two seed crops per season. Seeds need to be buried in soil or litter and have fall moisture to germinate. The fall seed crop has greater reproductive success than spring. Seeds lack dispersal anatomy so fall close to parent plants but transport readily with animals, people and equip- ment. Seed longevity is about three years. Both inbreeding and cross breed- ing occur. Cheatgrass is one of the most com- petitive non-natives in the Western US. It thrives in arid, semi arid, and cold environments. Colorado’s high eleva- tion range is not an issue for cheatgrass; plants were recently detected as high as 9,500 feet. It exhibits phenotypic plastic- ity and genetic diversity, making it high- ly adaptable to a variety of conditions, likely due to multiple introductions. Its presence has significant negative impacts throughout the West. Most no- tably, it alters fire regimes and thus engineers a posi- tive fire feedback loop that favors its growth over other plants. This feedback loop is why cheatgrass forms monocultures throughout the West. It is often confused with Japanese brome (Bromus ja- ponicus), which has denser more compact spikelets, shorter awns, and changes from green to gold through the growing season.Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum L.Cheatgrass Identification and Management © Leslie J. Mehrhoff, University of CT © Veronika Johansson, iNaturalist © Priyantha Wijesinghe, iNaturalist ©James Bailey, iNaturalist Rev. 2/19 Colorado Department of Agriculture - Conservation Services 305 Interlocken Parkway Broomfield, CO 80021 (303) 869-9030 www.colorado.gov/ag/weeds List C Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum L.Integrated Weed Management Recommendations Effective integrated management means using a variety of eradication methods in the same site along with restoration, prevention of seed production and dispersal, and monitoring. Maintain robust healthy native landscapes. Restore degraded sites. Avoid soil disturbance. Prevent seed production and seed dispersal, e.g. on contaminated equipment. Rest sites until restored. Modify land use practices. Use methods appropriate for the site, including land use practices. MECHANICAL Mechanical methods are best for residential areas and small infestations. Mowing and chopping are not recommeded; they leave roots behind, stimulate flower production, disperse seeds, and expand the size of the infested area. Collect, bag, and dispose of or destroy flowers; seeds can mature and germinate if left. Tilling must be deeper than 6 inches to work. Prescribed fire applied before seed maturity, (late spring or early summer), may kill seeds; the trick is to get green cheatgrass and litter to carry fire and at a hot enough temperature to destroy seeds and seedlings. Always combine prescribed fire with cultural methods, timed appropriately, and base it on site conditions and other plants present. Monitoring and adaptive management are critical if prescribed fire is used as a tool for control. CHEMICAL Pseudomonas fluorescens D7 inhibits cheatgrass and is currently approved by EPA and Colorado. NOTE: Herbicide recommendations to control cheatgrass in pastures and rangeland are found at: https://goo.gl/ TvWnv9. Rates are approximate and based on equipment with an output of 30 gal/acre. Follow the label for exact rates. Consult local turf and ornamental experts for residential settings. Always read, understand, and follow the label directions. The herbicide label is the LAW! BIOLOGICAL Sheep and cattle will select green cheatgrass which also affects desired cool-season grasses. Properly managed grazing can improve vigor of desired species and directly reduce cheatgrass. Post-fire grazing management varies depending on site potential and objectives. Currently there are no biological control agents for cheatgrass authorized in Colorado. For more biocontrol information, visit the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s Palisade Insectary website at: www.colorado.gov/ag/biocontrol CULTURAL Biological soil crust is a soil health indicator of arid and semi arid sites; crusts inhibit cheatgrass seed germination. Aerial spread and cultivate soil crust where it is absent. Aerial and drill seeding bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) and Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) with vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae; these are drought tolerant natives that are highly competitive against cheatgrass but require mycorrhizae. As these grasses establish and cheatgrass wanes slowly introduce additional species such as thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), yarrow (Achillea millefolium) in the plant interspaces in subsequent years. Be cautious when purchasing seed as cheatgrass is often a contaminate, especially in mixes. Use seed pillows to disperse seeds. © Stacy Litz, Associated Press © Bureau of Land Management© Martin Bernetti, Associated Press © Helena Weed Control, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Photos © (Clockwise from lower left): Theodore Webster, USDA, Bugwood.org; (Unknown) Oregon State University; Howard F. Schwartz, Colorado State University, Bugwood.org; Richard Old, XID Services Inc., Bugwood.org; (Unknown) Oregon State University 1 Redstem filareeColorado Dept. of AgricultureConservation Services Division700 Kipling StreetSuite 4000Lakewood, CO 80215303-239-4100 1. The hairy red colored stems. 2. The opposite leaf pattern in the rosette stage. 3. The long-beak like fruit and seed. Identification and Impacts R edstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) is a winter annual or biennial forb that has a spreading or erect profile and is native to the Mediterranean or Asia. Part of the Geranium family, Redstem filaree grows generally from a rosette stage, and can grow from the 3 inches to 2 feet tall. The stems are hairy and red in color. The leaves are opposite and finely divided with toothed or lobed margins. They are pubescent, grow on short stems and have a reddish tint. The root system is a shallow taproot with fiberous secondary roots. The five petaled flowers are a purplish-pink in color and are in clusters of 2 or more. Each flower will produce five long lobed fruits. Each fruit will have an awn like tail which will dry and split with maturity. Redstem filaree primarily reproduces by seed and generally germinates in early spring. H abitats for Redstem filaree include: dry pasturelands, landscapes, turfgrass and it prefers sandy soils. It can easily outcompete desirable vegetation once established. Redstem filaree is drought tolerant and can withstand a heavy stocking rate. The plant is Key ID Points Erodium cicutariumRedstem filareeIdentification and Management grazed by many different animals especially sheep. T he key to effective control of Redstem filaree is preventing establishment of the plant and seed production. There are many options for control of Redstem filaree depending on site ecology. Both chemical and mechanical control options are effective. Details on the back of this sheet can help to create a management plan compatible with your site ecology. R edstem filaree is designated as a “List C” species in the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. It is required to be either eradicated, contained, or suppressed depending on the local infestations. For more information visit www.colorado.gov/ag/weeds or call the State Weed Coordinator at the Colorado Department of Agriculture, Conservation Services Division, 303-239-4100. List C Species Rangeland, pasture, and riparian site recommendations Updated on: 08/09 CULTURALPrevent the establishment of Redstem filaree, in rangeland or pastureland by planting native grasses and forbs. Contact your local Natural Resources Conservation Service for seed mix recommendations that may help. Bareground is prime habitat for weed invasions. BIOLOGICALCurrently there is not any biocontrol available for Redstem filaree. Biocontrol takes many years of research and development. For more information, contact the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s Insectary in Palisade, Colorado at 970-464-7916. MECHANICAL Hand pulling or digging when soil is moist, making sure to get the roots to prevent resprouting is effective. Removing flowers before the plant sets seed will also be effective. Be sure to bag specimens carefully so as not to spread seeds. Any kind of tillage to the area can also be effective. Above photos © (Top): Richard Old, XID Services Inc., Bugwood.org; (Middle) Whitney Cranshaw, Colorado State University, Bugwood.org; (Bottom) Kelly Uhing, Colorado Department of Agriculture C Redstem filareeIntegrated Weed Management: Locate and remove plants immediately before plants set seed to prevent the spread of Redstem filaree. Since the plant reproduces solely by seed, an integrated management effort must include the elimination of seed production and depletion of seed bank. Combing control methods of herbicide and mechanical can be effective.http://www.colorado.gov/ag/weeds HERBICIDES NOTE: The following are recommendations for herbicides that can be applied to range and pas-turelands. Rates are approximate and based on equipment with an output of 30 gallons per acre. Always read, understand, and follow the label directions. The herbicide label is the LAW! Management RecommendationsHERBICIDE RATE APPLICATION TIMING Metsulfuron (Escort XP).33 oz of product /acre +.025% v/v non-ionic surfactant Apply rosette stage through early flower stage. 2,4-D + dicamba (Rangestar)2 pt. + 1 pt. product /acre Apply rosette stage of growth.