The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPOLESTAR VILLAGE - PDP220010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 3 - ECS REPORT Ecological Characterization Study Pole Star Community (JR Engineering, LLC) City of Fort Collins Larimer County, CO Prepared For: Ken Merritt JR Engineering, LLC. 2900 S. College Avenue, Suite 3D Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Prepared By: Sarah J. Smith & John Giordanengo AloTerra Restoration Services 320 E. Vine Drive, Suite 213 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Report Submitted by: _____________________ ______________ John H. Giordanengo Date Principal Restoration Ecologist AloTerra Restoration Services 970-420-7346 john@aloterraservices.com 05/26/2023 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3 PROPERTY LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................ 3 STUDY METHODS .............................................................................................................................................. 4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Site Description ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Site Conditions and Status ................................................................................................................................ 7 Existing Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Topography ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Natural Habitats and Features with Significant Ecological Value ...................................................................... 7 Natural Habitats and Plant Communities.......................................................................................................... 8 Proximity to Designated Natural Areas ........................................................................................................... 10 WILDLIFE ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ............................................................................ 11 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM) ................................................................................................... 11 Rare Plants ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Other Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................. 12 NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE (NHBZ) DESIGN AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 13 Forestry Mitigation ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Noxious Weeds ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Enhancement ................................................................................................ 13 Development Activities ................................................................................................................................... 14 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 LITERATURE CITATED ...................................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A: WETLAND DELINEATION FIELD FORMS APPENDIX B: WETLAND DELINEATION PHOTOS APPENDIX C: WILDLIFE REVIEW APPENDIX D: DRAFT 60% DESIGN APPENDIX E: Approved JD Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 3 Introduction This report constitutes the Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) required for the proposed development of the Pole Star Community, within the General Commercial (CG) zone district and the TOD overlay district. This ECS report is provided in association with a draft 60% design (Appendix D) for the 50’ Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) required for this development, wetland mitigation, and riparian forest mitigation. This ECS was completed by AloTerra Restoration Services to address requirements set forth in Article 3, section 3.4.1 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Project Description The Pole Star Community project (the Project) includes the development of mixed-use residential properties that ranges from single family homes to studio apartments and live/work units (see JR Engineering Plan Set). This site is what was previously Happy Heart Farms and associated undeveloped areas. Due to the proximity of Saddle Ridge Natural Area and Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, the City of Fort Collins Environmental Planning Department is requiring a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone to mitigate impacts to wildlife habitat. Currently, there is one wetland area on site, totaling 0.06 acres of wetland habitat, which will require a 50’ buffer, as well as riparian forest habitat which will require a 50’ buffer from the dripline (Figure 2). A majority of this wetland occurs within the NHBZ area. NHBZ designs, including wetland and riparian area enhancement, are included in the attached design plan. Several species of mature trees exist on site, including both native and introduced species, that provide corridor habitat for a variety of wildlife, which will also need to be included in mitigation efforts. Property Location The approximate 21.5-acre property is located within the City of Fort Collins, on what was previously Happy Heart Farms. The northern edge of the property is bordered by the Locust Grove subdivision, and the easter edge is bordered by the Mountaire subdivision. The southern edge is bordered by private landowners, and the southwest border is shared with Scenic Views PUD. Saddle Ridge Natural Area lies to the west (Figure 1). The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal also borders the west and southern boundaries of the property (Figure 1). The center of the property lies approximately at 40°34’37.20” N and 105°07’46.35” W. Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 4 Figure 1. Project location. Study Methods In fulfillment of the ECS requirements set forth in Article 3, section 3.4.1 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, AloTerra staff acquired desktop data and conducted field surveys to characterize existing ecological and wildlife conditions, as well as other natural features occurring on the site. Ecological Field Assessments: September 24, 2021, November 1, 2021, October 21, 2022 Wildlife Field Review: November 1, 2021 Desktop analysis included reviews and interpretations of aerial imagery, assessment of regional drainage patterns, IPAC database review (USFWS), groundwater conditions, and location of nearby natural areas. Field assessments included qualitative rapid assessments of native plant communities, weed populations, wetland and riparian areas, wildlife habitat conditions, and indicators of current wildlife occupation. In addition, a formal wetland delineation was performed (Appendices A and B). The rapid assessment of vegetation was performed to compile a list of dominant and co-dominant species, and species present in each community at a lower cover. For the purposes of this study, a plant was considered dominant or co-dominant if its relative cover is greater than 20%. There may be several species present on site that, due to their phenological stage, were not readily observable at the time of this survey. However, based on general disturbed site conditions, and the presence of above ground features of dominant species that are present, we are confident that this survey captured species that together represent at least 90% of the above ground biomass of the site. Results The results of the field and desktop assessments are described below, with the associated natural features represented in Figure 2. Approximately 99% of the project site is characterized as historic agricultural and pasture fields. Less than Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 5 1% of the site is comprised of wetland and riparian communities, which are in a degraded state or dominated by understories of exotic plants. Figure 2. Mapped natural features within Project boundary. Site Description From a historical perspective, prior to modern development, we believe the project site to have been dominated by short-grass prairie within the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion (level III ecoregion). Given the proximity of the property to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, a manmade water diversion, it is likely that the existing wetland and cottonwood trees are not historic. However, both of these habitats are important to wildlife habitat directly, and as part of larger corridors. Historic aerial imagery dating back to 1956 shows that this area has been in agriculture for a minimum of 65 years. Currently, the upland areas are dominated by crops, non-native weeds, and soils that have been continually disturbed due to cultivation activities. The wetland and associated riparian areas are of low native species diversity, low community complexity, and low structural diversity. Several mature cottonwood trees exist on site, along with Russian olive and various conifer species that were planted as a windrow or grew in association with high moisture conditions along the canal. Soils are generally loam, clay loam, and clay (Table 1). The greatest habitat features include the wetland community and native cottonwoods that exist on site. Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 6 Figure 3. Existing soil types within the Project boundary. Table 1. Soil type descriptions (data from USGS Web Soil Survey). Soil Type/Composition Map Symbol Slope Profile Parent Material Drainage Class Depth to Water Table Hydric Soil Altvan-Satanta loam 55% Altvan, 35% Satanta, 10% minor components 4 3-9% Altvan H1 – 0 to 9”: loam H2 – 9 to 16”: clay loam H3 – 16 to 31”: loam H4 – 31 to 60”: gravelly sand Satanta H1 – 0 to 9”: loam H2 – 9 to 14”: loam H3 – 14 to 60”: loam Mixed alluvium Well drained More than 80” No Heldt clay loam 90% heldt, 10% minor components 48 0-3% H1 – 0 to 4”: clay loam H2 – 4 to 15: clay H3 – 15 to 26”: clay H4 – 26 to 35”: clay H5 – 35 to 80”: clay Fine textured alluvium derived from clayey shale Well drained More than 80” No Loveland clay loam 90% loveland, 10% minor components 64 0-1% H1 – 0 to 15”: clay loam H2 – 15 to 32”: loam H3 – 32 to 60”: very gravelly sand Alluvium Poorly drained More than 80” No Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 7 Soil Type/Composition Map Symbol Slope Profile Parent Material Drainage Class Depth to Water Table Hydric Soil Satanta loam 90% Satanta, 10% minor components 95 1-3% H1 – 0 to 9”: loam H2 – 9 to 18”: clay loam H3 – 18 to 79”: loam Eoilian sands Well drained More than 80” No Site Conditions and Status The site is currently dominated by former and existing agricultural operations, a small wetland, and riparian vegetation associated with Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. The greatest ecological functions provided by existing site include organic matter production by the non-native vegetation, which supports some wildlife species and also helps to minimize soil erosion. However, the low diversity of native upland vegetation minimizes the related diversity and biomass of native wildlife. The wetland and associated riparian habitat provide some minor wildlife benefits, though those benefits are limited due to its small size and low structural/functional diversity. Existing Infrastructure Existing infrastructure includes a headgate and associated culverts that are connected to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. A small lateral irrigation line also runs from west to east through the property for agricultural purposes. A berm on the east side of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal was likely constructed as an embankment during Canal excavation, with a secondary benefit of controlling flooding on Happy Valley Farms. Existing electrical, fiber, water infrastructure can be found on the JR Engineering PDP. Topography The project site is generally flat (< 5% slope). Natural Habitats and Features with Significant Ecological Value In this section we provide a checklist of required features as outlined in the ECS. No significant native plant communities were documented on the site apart from the emergent vegetation and mature cottonwood trees. Natural Communities or Habitats Aquatic: no; Wetland and wet meadow: yes; Native grassland: no; Riparian forest: yes; Urban plains forest: no; Riparian shrubland: no; Foothills forest: no; Foothills shrubland: no Special Features (enter yes/no, indicate on map, and describe details below): Significant remnants of native plant communities: no. Based on field conditions and analysis of aerial imagery, it is apparent no significant remnant native plant communities exist on site. The existing riparian plant associates are likely a result of human-created topographic (e.g., stormwater drainages), hydrologic, and surface water alterations. Areas of significant geological or paleontological interest: not likely. A cultural and historical resources survey was not conducted as part of this assessment. However, based on the history of the site, it is unlikely the site harbors significant cultural or historical resources. Any prominent views from or across the site? no. No significant views can be seen, as much of the site is surrounded by housing developments. The pattern, species and location of any significant native trees and other native site vegetation. The only significant native vegetation occurring on the Project site includes a small patch of cattail (Typha latifolia) and baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and several mature cottonwood trees. Pattern, species, and location of any significant non-native trees. Russian olive (Eleaganus angustifolia) and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) trees can be found throughout the property. Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 8 Special habitat features The special habitat features on the project site include the wetland; however, the quality of this wetland is of moderate to poor condition and function. Natural Habitats and Plant Communities The subsections below outline the conditions of native habitats existing on site: wetlands, agriculture, pasture, and disturbed uplands. Refer to Figure 3 for locations of these features and Figure 4/Table 2 for mitigation. Wetland Communities (non jurisdictional) Description AloTerra performed a formal wetland delineation on site (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region, Version 2.0, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) and a review of other aquatic features such as ponds and streams. Because the vegetation and hydrology of the wetland, we consider it more typical of an herbaceous wetland community. No perennial or ephemeral streams exist within the survey areas, so we did not conduct an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) survey. AloTerra submitted an approved jurisdictional determination to USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) in 2022. On Nov 1, 2022 USACE ruled that the wetland AloTerra identified in the project area is non-jurisdictional. USACE assigned the Corps File number as NWO-2022-01369-DEN (Appendix E). Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Cattail (Typha latifolia), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Russian olive (Eleaganus angustifolia), and fringed willow herb (Epilobium ciliatum) were the dominant species at the time of sampling. Riparian Forest Description AloTerra mapped the dripline of the riparian forest area (Figure 1). Mitigation for the riparian forest will be addressed through the tree mitigation plan, in coordination with the City of Fort Collins Forestry Dept. Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Crack willow (Salix x fragilis), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Agricultural Communities Description The project site is highly disturbed and predominately vegetated with non-native grasses. Due to the high cover of bare ground, high cover of non-native vegetation, and low diversity of structure, the wildlife value of this field is low. Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Hairy evening primrose (Oenothera villosa), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), kochia (Bassia scoparia), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae), and three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus) were the dominant and subdominant species in this community, with about 30% bare ground present at time of sampling. Pasture Communities Description The project site is highly disturbed and predominately vegetated with non-native grasses. Due to the high cover of bare ground, high cover of non-native vegetation, and low diversity of structure, the wildlife value of this field is low. Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) were the dominant species in this community present at time of sampling. Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 9 Disturbed Upland Plant Communities Description Upland areas are highly disturbed and predominately vegetated by non-native flora. Due to the high cover non- native vegetation and low diversity or structure, the wildlife value of these areas is very low. Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and bindweed (Convovulus arvensis) were dominant across this community at time of sampling. Figure 4. Mitigation areas for wetland. Mitigation Requirements Table 2 provides a breakdown of mitigation requirements for wetland impacts. Mitigation requirements are based on Land Use Code from City of Fort Collins. The 0.32 acres of wetland mitigation requirements was verified in a meeting with Kirk Longstein, Env. Planner with City of Fort Collins, on March 23, 2023. Riparian Forest mitigation is being met through the tree planting plan developed by the City of Fort Collin’s Forestry Dept and JR Engineering. Table 2. Mitigation Requirements for wetland impacts. Mitigation Type Acreage Wetland Area Impacted by Development 0.05 Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 10 Wetland NHBZ Impacted by Development 0.27 acres Total 1:1 Mitigation Required: 0.32 acres Proximity to Designated Natural Areas The Project property is directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of Saddle Ridge Natural Area (Figure 1), which is managed by the Saddle Ridge Commons Condominium Association. Wildlife A full wildlife survey was conducted on November 1, 2021. A songbird survey will be conducted in the spring of 2022. The full wildlife report can be found in Appendix C. An official species list was documented by U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation IPAC was obtained using known ranges of federally listed species in the Project area. A list was also unofficially obtained from the 2016 Colorado Natural Heritage Program database by determining known sightings of sensitive species near Kingfisher Wetland project area. On November 1, 2021, an AloTerra Restoration Services field technician conducted a site visit in order to assess suitable habitat for known listed and sensitive animal species. Table 3 lists provides a record of the federally listed Federally listed species that could occur within the area of the proposed project (20 acres). The table includes (a) the common name of the species (b) the scientific name of the species (c) the status of the species in question (d) whether or not the species should be excluded and (e) the reasoning why the species should be excluded. The reasoning of excluding species from the list of concerned species is given based off a variety of reasons including: 1) No suitable habitat was found during site visit, The range of the species in is such that the species is highly unlikely to not known near occur within the project site; 2) No suitable habitat was found during the site review; and/or 3) No records for the species exist within the project site. Table 3. Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species that may occur or be affected by the actions within the Project. Common Name Species Status Species Excluded Notes, or Reason for Exclusion Mammals Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened No Species and habitat are not present. Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Birds Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Yes Critical habitat does not overlap with project site Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with project site Least tern Sterna antillarum Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with project site Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Yes Range does not overlap with project site Fish Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Yes Species and habitat are not present. Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Plants Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Ute ladies-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Western prairie fringed orchid Plantanthera praeclara Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula Endangered Yes Found in higher elevation range (8,000- 8,300 ft) Sourced from IPAC :http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ website. Note- Some species may be affected downstream from water source. *There are no federally designated critical habitats within the project area. Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 11 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM) Since 1998, the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) has been federally listed as threatened by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. In Colorado, they are also listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Needs, considered sensitive by the US Forest Service, and critically imperiled according to the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Declining PMJM populations are due to predation, habitat degradation, and fragmentation. In Colorado, the PMJM can be found up to elevations around 7,000 feet east of the Front Range, and west to the shortgrass prairie (USFWS, 2013). Preble’s meadow jumping mice are found in areas with natural hydrological processes that create a dense riparian area with biologically diverse herbaceous plants. PMJM have been found in environments with a variety of plant species, frequently in areas with a thick layer of grasses and forbs that create cover. Studies show that the specific species composition of herbaceous plants is not as important to supporting populations, but that suitable habitat needs to have a higher percentage of ground cover in the vicinity to open water. Most PMJM were found within areas with a higher density of the shrub layer consisting mostly of willows. The mice use adjacent grassy uplands as far as approximately 300 feet from the 100-year floodplain to “hibernate” during the colder months. These nests are called hibernacula and can be found under the cover of snowberry, chokecherry, cottonwoods, gooseberry, and other willow species. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (1973) prevents any funded or authorized agency to take action that would negatively affect lands labeled as PMJM Critical habitat. Critical Habitat is defined by areas currently occupied by the species or potential areas in which the species could establish. In 2013, The Fish and Wildlife Service revised the critical habitat designation for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (shapefiles found at: https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/es/species/mammals/preble/CRITICAL%20HABITAT/CRITICALHABITATindex.htm). The approximate 50,000 acres designated for critical habitat occur adjacent to streams and rivers in the Colorado foothill and mountain regions. PMJM critical habitat is located in Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer and Teller Counties (USFWS, 2014). Currently there is no critical habitat designated in The Project area (USFWS, 2010). Although the Project area does not have optimal habitat due to lack of desired upland vegetation, presence of PMJM cannot be confirmed without a thorough survey of the area. Rare Plants The rare plant survey resulted in no evidence of Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) or Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana var. coloradenesis) in the project area. Based on existing habitat quality, it is unlikely these plants would occupy the project area. Sensitive Species The sensitive species list is derived from the U.S. Forest Service (https://www.fs.usda.gov) and Colorado Parks and Wildlife data on present sensitive species ranges and distributions (USFS, 2005). The Regional Forester’s sensitive list is evaluated by examining viable risk of species; these species are categorized as R2 sensitive, not R2 sensitive, or, not a concern. Suitable habitat was also determined by a site visit conducted by AloTerra Restoration Services on November 01, 2021. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act no activity that “takes, transports, barters, or exports the listed migratory birds or eagles is permissible unless it is sanctioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The sensitive species list includes migratory birds that could use The Project area as a breeding, over-wintering, or stopover site. The species found in Table 4 below are compiled from lists of at-risk species that have potential habitat or occurrence in the Project area, specifically in the vicinity of the documented wetland. The table is organized as followed: (a) The common name of the species, (b) The scientific name of the species, (c) The status of the species in question, (d) Whether or not the species should be excluded, and (e) The reasons why the species should be excluded. Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 12 Table 4. Sensitive species that could occur in the Saddle Ridge Natural Area. Common name Species Status Species Excluded Reasons for exclusion Mammals Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Forest Service Sensitive Yes Found in coniferous forest and mixed pine Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Forest Service Sensitive Yes Habitat requirements are not in range Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in the project site White-tailed prairie dog (Ocynomys leucurus) Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in the project site Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Range does not overlap with project site Swift fox Vulpes velox Forest Service Sensitive No Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Forest Service Sensitive No Cassin’s sparrow Aimophila cassinii Bird of Conservation Concern Yes Range does not overlap with project site Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Bird of Conservation Concern Yes Range does not overlap with project site Black Swift Cypseloides niger Forest Service Sensitive Yes Habitat requires cliffs limited in Colorado Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Site location does not overlap with species range Sandhill Crane Antigone canadensis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Forest Service Sensitive No Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Federal Species of Concern No Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Found in sage brush habitat Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Forest Service Sensitive Yes Native species range does not meet area requirements Fish Plains Minnow Hybognathus plactius State Endangered Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus latipinnis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Amphibians Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Forest Service Sensitive No Plains leopard frog Lithobates blairi Forest Service Sensitive Yes Range does not overlap with project site Species list was sourced from U.S. Forest Service https://www.fs.usda.gov Rocky Mountain Region and USFWS Migratory birds for the Mountain-Prairie Region updated 2017. Migratory bird list was sourced from USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php. Other Wildlife As previously discussed, the proposed Project would minimally impact (or have no impact) to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Species, and Sensitive Species of Concern whose ranges potentially overlap with the Project area. In addition, due to low vegetation species diversity and poor riparian conditions, the Project area does not provide any critical habitat to federally listed or sensitive species. The mature cottonwoods provide some habitat for song birds and raptors in the spring and summer, including great horned owls, American kestrels, western tanagers, dark-eyed juncos, and variety of sparrows. No ground nests or raptor nests were found on the site during site visit of November 01, 2021. There were signs of raccoons (Procyon lotor), great blue herons (Ardea herodias) and coyote (Canis latrans). A young male mule deer was seen along the canal corridor and droppings were found throughout the Project. Many common animal species have been observed throughout the Project including garter snakes, Canadian geese, great horned owls, Eurasian doves, blue jays, Northern flickers, golden finches, and House sparrows. Ornate box turtles and Mallard ducks Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 13 have been sighted in the pond north of the Project. This wetland area and old growth trees could potentially be suitable habitat for songbird nesting/feeding and should therefore be protected during any future construction. Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) Design and Recommendations AloTerra’s concept design for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (see Appendix D for plan set) would result in significant ecological uplift of wetland, riparian, and upland areas, providing potential habitat for a great variety of wildlife, including those species listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this report. Forestry Mitigation A formal forestry survey has been completed for the site. All required tree mitigation will be met through the tree mitigation plan developed by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Dept. and JR Engineering. Noxious Weeds A preliminary weed (non-native plants) list is provided in the wetland, riparian, and upland plant community sections above. Of the weeds present, those species of greatest management concern include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae). These species are difficult to eradicate without intensive chemical treatment methods due to their perennial growth habits. The landowners for this Project have requested the use of organic weed control and treatments, which align with their philosophies for the long-term health of the property. Because of the aggressive nature of the non-native species within the NHBZ, we recommend removing the top 8” of soil from the weed dominated areas, which will remove the aboveground biomass (i.e., seed source) and root mass (i.e., reproduction via rhizomes, tillers, and other root buds) for weed species. This will help to diminish weed populations without the use of herbicides. Canada thistle rhizomes can penetrate much deeper, so a formal weed management plan will be developed with certified organic treatment recommendations, as well as methods for spot treating any other weeds that may reestablish. A buffer of 10’ from the top of ditch for the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal should be maintained, so the stability of the berm is not jeopardized. The weed excavated areas will be treated with new topsoil, or amended with organics such as compost and/or slow- release organic fertilizers. These treated areas will be restored with a diversity of native locally-adapted vegetation, per the Concept Design in Appendix D. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Enhancement The 50’ wide NHBZ, with the western boundary being the existing top of bank of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, will build upon the natural features of the existing property. Currently, three distinct communities exist; wetland/riparian, and upland. By treating this area as described above, the site will be appropriate for native seed and plant containers. Native seed mixes will include wetland, riparian, and two upland mixes (see Appendix D for plant lists). To address the shade created by existing trees, we recommend a full sun mix and a shade-tolerant upland seed mix. Shade-tolerant seed mixes will be broadcast where trees will remain, with exact locations of these mixes to be refined in future design iterations, and once a formal tree inventory and mitigation plan is completed. All seed mixes will combine grass and grass-like species, shrubs, and flowering forbs to attract pollinators. Native container plants throughout the three zones will also be installed to increase the amount of diversity throughout the NHBZ. Examples include bulrushes and sedges for the wetland and riparian areas, and fruiting shrubs and small trees for the upland areas. To build upon the sustainability goals of AloTerra, the City of Fort Collins, and Pole Star, we encourage using as many on- site materials as possible, to minimize the fuel consumption, carbon emissions, and other impacts associated with materials import. This includes, but not limited to, using existing downed trees as features throughout the NHBZ, which can provide diverse habitat for wildlife throughout the corridor, and act as natural benches for visitors. Excavated soil in the NHBZ can be used as on-site fill for development purposes, to reduce the need to import fill to the site. Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 14 Currently, the wetland boundary overlaps with the planned development (Figure 1). Depending on the wetland determination status by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Fort Collins mitigation requirements, AloTerra proposes a wetland design that increases diversity and ecological function. This would be achieved by excavating the wetland to achieve a greater variety of hydrologic conditions (e.g., shallow open water, submergent, emergent, etc.). Topography will also be designed to support mesic meadow and facultative wetland species, which will transition to riparian habitats where willows and mesoriparian/xeroriparian shrubs can be planted (Figure 5). Figure 5. Example wetland cross section. Development Activities The project is currently in the Preliminary Development Plan phase. JR Engineering estimates that construction will start in 2023. Construction should avoid impacting important suitable habitat for sensitive or endangered species. In order to minimally impact sensitive or migratory bird populations, it is important to avoid impacting any potential nesting sites (e.g., cottonwood trees, willow thickets, or areas of high herbaceous vegetation cover). Issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological character of the area. Because no active raptor nests currently exist on site, and the site does not provide significant migratory bird habitat, it is not likely that spring construction limitations would be imposed. However, we do recommend a site survey prior to construction to confirm that no raptor nests have been established on site since the initial wildlife review. No other issues regarding timing are known at this time. Measures needed to mitigate projected adverse impacts of development on natural habitats and features. During construction there will be setbacks, silt fence, and erosion control to help mitigate any adverse impacts to existing wetland and riparian features, as well as to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal water quality. Summary In summary, we believe that the proposed development would have minimal impact to sensitive or rare wildlife or plants, natural features, and other important ecological functions and conservation elements in the region. The proposed NHBZ would create overall ecological uplift of the site and enhance the quality of plant communities and connectivity of habitat for wildlife. Because the site is currently dominated by invasive species, the value to wildlife is not significant due to minimal structure and function. Ecological Characterization Study, Pole Star Community Page 15 Literature Citated Bechard, M.J., Houston, C.S., Sarasola, J.H., and England, A.S., (2010). Sw’inson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), In: The Birds of North America (Rodewald, P. G., [Ed.]), Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species- Account/bna/species/swahaw. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. 2017. Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/fc-plan-draft17.pdf?1495234374 Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (2005). Leopard Frogs: Assessing Habitat Quality for Wildlife Species in Colorado Wetlands. Retrieved from https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/PrioritySpecies/Factsheet-and-Habitat- Scorecard_LeopardFrogs.pdf. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (n.d.) Species Profiles. Retrieved from http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx Marks, R., Paul, R., Rewa, C., and Peak, M., (2005). Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) Wildlife Habitat Council and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Grasslands/SwiftFox.pdf Swenson, J. E., K. L. Alt, and R. L. Eng. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildl. Monogr. 95: 1 -46. Slater, G.L. and Rock, C., (2005). Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182007.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Critical Habitat: Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. USFWS Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species Program. http://mountainprairie.fw15reblepreble/CRITICAL_HABITAT/CRITIALHABITATindex.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. 4310-55-S U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions and Recommended Conservation Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), the Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis), and the Colorado butterfly plant (Guara neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) from Emergency Flood Response Activities Along Streams, Rivers, or Transportation Corridors in Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Ecological Services Field Office. September 24, 2013. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), (2015). Sensitive Species List: Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5390116 Woodbridge, B., (1998). Sw’inson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In: The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian-associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Retrieved from http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html Appendix A: Wetland Delineation Field Forms ; DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION – Great Plains Project/Site: Pole Star Applicant/Owner: AloTerra Restoration Services Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): NA Subregion (LRR): City/County: Fort Collins, Larimer Co. State: CO Section/Township/Range: Local Relief: None Lat: Long: Sampling Date: 11/01/2021 Sampling Point: SP1 Slope (%): less than 1% Datum: n/a Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation, Yes Soil, Yes ; or Hydrology Yes significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? -- Are Vegetation, No answers in Remarks.) Soil, No ; or Hydrology No naturally problematic? . -- (If needed, explain any SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes Hydric Soil Present: Yes Wetland Hydrology Present: Yes Is the sampled area within a wetland: Yes FORM NOTES Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3. Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height. FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology determinations. Remarks: Area is a slight depression on the east side of a berm and man made ditch (Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal). Hydrology likely comes from ditch. Historic aerial imagery does not indicate a wetland present on the site prior to ditch establishment. __ __ __ __ __ __ Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species 1. -- -- that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. -- -- 3. -- -- Total no. of dominant 4. -- -- species across all strata: 3 (B) 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. )Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. -- -- 2. -- -- 3. -- -- 4. -- -- 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. Typha latifolia 2. Juncus balticus 10 Yes 85 Yes OBL FACW 3. Solidago canadensis 1 -- UPL 4. Cirsium arvense 1 -- UPL 5. Phalaris arundinaceae 10 Yes FACW 6. Symphyotrichum laeve 7. 1 -- -- FAC -- 8. -- -- 9. -- -- 10. -- -- 11. -- -- 108 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 -- -- -- -- 0 = Total Cover REMARKS: Wetland area is dominated by baltic rush and canary reed grass with a small patch of cattails. Sampling Point: SP1 Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Cover of: OBL spp: FACW spp: FAC spp: FACU spp: UPL spp: 10 95 1 0 2 Multiply by: x1 = 10 x2 = 190 x3 = 3 x4 = 0 x5 = 10 Column totals: (A) 108 (B) 213 Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1.87 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ _ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation _ _ 2. Dominance test is > 50% _ _ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 _ _ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide Supporting data in remarks or attach) _ _ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Remarks: SOILS Profile Description (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10-18 10yr 2/1 98 10yr 4/1 98 7.5YR 5/6 2 7.5yr 5/6 2 C M C M -- -- -- -- Silty clay loam 1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 Histosol (A1) Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) Histic epipedon (A2) Sandy redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy mucky mineral (F1) 1cm Muck (A9) Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Thick dark surface (A12) Redox dark surface (F6) Red parent material (TF2) Sandy mucky mineral (S1) Depleted dark surface (F7) Very shallow dark surface (TF12) 2.5 cm Mucky peat or peat (S2) Redox depressions (F8) Other (explain) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present) Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface water (A1) Salt crust (B11) Soil surface cracks (B6) High water table (A2) Aquatic invertebrates (B13) Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) Drainage patterns (B10) Water marks (B1) Dry-season water table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish burrows (C8) Algal mat or crust (B4) Presence of reduced iron (C4) Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) Iron deposits (B5) Thick muck surface (C7) Geomorphic position (D2) Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) Other (explain in remarks) FAC-neutral test (D5) Water stained leaves (B9) Field Observations: Surface water present: No Water table present: Yes Saturation present: Yes Depth (inches): Depth (inches): soil pit filled at -18 inches Depth (inches): at surface Frost-heave hummocks (D7) (LRR F) (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 1 cm muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast prairie redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark surface (S7) (LRR G) High plains depressions (F16) Hydric Soil Present? Yes Sampling Point: SP1 Silty clay loam Soil Chroma and Value for Wetland Soils Per 2018 regional supplement: The following combinations of value and chroma identify a depleted matrix for loamy and clayey material (and sandy material in areas of indicators A11 and A12): 1. Matrix value of 5 or more and chroma of 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 2. Matrix value of 6 or more and chroma of 2 or 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 3. Matrix value of 4 or 5 and chroma of 2, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 4. Matrix value of 4 and chroma of 1, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Common (2 to less than 20 percent) to many (20 percent or more) redox concentrations (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002) are required in soils with matrix colors of 4/1, 4/2, and 5/2 (Figure A1). Redox concentrations include iron and manganese masses and pore linings (Vepraskas 1992). See “contrast” in this glossary for the definitions of “distinct” and “prominent.” Gleyed matrix. A gleyed matrix has one of the following combinations of hue, value, and chroma and the soil is not glauconitic (Figure A2): • 10Y, 5GY, 10GY, 10G, 5BG, 10BG, 5B, 10B, or 5PB with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1; or • 5G with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1 or 2; or • N with value of 4 or more (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Redoximorphic Definitions Concentration: Patches of oxidized iron which can form soft masses and along root channels and other pores. Depletion: Gray or reddish gray colors of soil caused by the loss of iron through translocation. Reduced Matrix: Soils that are saturated and contain ferrous iron at the time of sampling may change color upon exposure to the air, as ferrous iron oxidizes to ferric iron in the presence of oxygen. ; DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION – Great Plains Project/Site: Pole Star Applicant/Owner: AloTerra Restoration Services Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): NA Subregion (LRR): City/County: Fort Collins, Larimer Co. State: CO Section/Township/Range: Local Relief: None Lat: Long: Sampling Date: 11/01/2021 Sampling Point: SP2 Slope (%): less than 5% Datum: n/a Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation, Yes Soil, Yes ; or Hydrology Yes significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? No Are Vegetation, No answers in Remarks.) Soil, No ; or Hydrology No naturally problematic? . -- (If needed, explain any SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes Hydric Soil Present: No Wetland Hydrology Present: No Is the sampled area within a wetland: No FORM NOTES Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3. Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height. FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology determinations. Remarks: Upland boundary marker for SP1. __ __ __ __ __ __ Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species 1. -- -- that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. -- -- 3. -- -- Total no. of dominant 4. -- -- species across all strata: 2 (B) 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. )Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. -- -- 2. -- -- 3. -- -- 4. -- -- 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover -- 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 -- -- -- -- 0 = Total Cover REMARKS: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Sampling Point: SP2 Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Cover of: OBL spp: FACW spp: FAC spp: FACU spp: UPL spp: 0 85 1 0 25 Multiply by: x1 = 0 x2 = 170 x3 = 3 x4 = 0 x5 = 125 Column totals: (A) 111 (B) 298 Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1.64 Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Status _ _ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 1. Bromus inermis 25 Yes UPL 2. Juncus balticus 5 -- FACW 3. Phalaris arundinacea 80 Yes FACW 4. Symphuotruchum laeva 1 -- FAC 5. -- -- 6. -- -- 7. -- -- _ _ 2. Dominance test is > 50% _ _ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 _ _ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide Supporting data in remarks or attach) _ _ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 8. -- -- 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 9. -- -- be present, unless disturbed or problematic 10. -- 11. -- 111 = Total Cover -- Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Remarks: Soils are much drier and sandier Remarks: No standing water in soil pit, no staturation in soil strata SOILS Profile Description (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Sandy clay loam sandy clay loam Remarks 1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 Histosol (A1) Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) Histic epipedon (A2) Sandy redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy mucky mineral (F1) 1cm Muck (A9) Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Thick dark surface (A12) Redox dark surface (F6) Red parent material (TF2) Sandy mucky mineral (S1) Depleted dark surface (F7) Very shallow dark surface (TF12) 2.5 cm Mucky peat or peat (S2) Redox depressions (F8) Other (explain) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present) Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface water (A1) Salt crust (B11) Soil surface cracks (B6) High water table (A2) Aquatic invertebrates (B13) Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) Drainage patterns (B10) Water marks (B1) Dry-season water table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish burrows (C8) Algal mat or crust (B4) Presence of reduced iron (C4) Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) Iron deposits (B5) Thick muck surface (C7) Geomorphic position (D2) Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) Other (explain in remarks) FAC-neutral test (D5) Water stained leaves (B9) Field Observations: Surface water present: No Water table present: No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Frost-heave hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Saturation present: No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? No 1 cm muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast prairie redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark surface (S7) (LRR G) High plains depressions (F16) Hydric Soil Present? No Sampling Point: SP2 0-12 10yr 5/1 100 -- -- 12-16 10YR 4/2 100 -- -- -- -- -- -- Soil Chroma and Value for Wetland Soils Per 2018 regional supplement: The following combinations of value and chroma identify a depleted matrix for loamy and clayey material (and sandy material in areas of indicators A11 and A12): 1. Matrix value of 5 or more and chroma of 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 2. Matrix value of 6 or more and chroma of 2 or 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 3. Matrix value of 4 or 5 and chroma of 2, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 4. Matrix value of 4 and chroma of 1, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Common (2 to less than 20 percent) to many (20 percent or more) redox concentrations (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002) are required in soils with matrix colors of 4/1, 4/2, and 5/2 (Figure A1). Redox concentrations include iron and manganese masses and pore linings (Vepraskas 1992). See “contrast” in this glossary for the definitions of “distinct” and “prominent.” Gleyed matrix. A gleyed matrix has one of the following combinations of hue, value, and chroma and the soil is not glauconitic (Figure A2): • 10Y, 5GY, 10GY, 10G, 5BG, 10BG, 5B, 10B, or 5PB with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1; or • 5G with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1 or 2; or • N with value of 4 or more (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Redoximorphic Definitions Concentration: Patches of oxidized iron which can form soft masses and along root channels and other pores. Depletion: Gray or reddish gray colors of soil caused by the loss of iron through translocation. Reduced Matrix: Soils that are saturated and contain ferrous iron at the time of sampling may change color upon exposure to the air, as ferrous iron oxidizes to ferric iron in the presence of oxygen. Appendix B: Wetland Delineation Photos Figure 1. Overview of wetland boundary (pink flagging). Figure 2. Sample Point 1 soil pit (LEFT), with standing water at the bottom and Sample Point 2 soil pit (RIGHT). Appendix C: Wildlife Review Pole Star Wildlife Review 1 | P a g e Pole Star Community Wildlife Review Prepared by: AloTerra Restoration Services, LLC 320 E. Vine Drive Suit 314 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Prepared on: November 01, 2021 Background Pole Star Community, formerly Happy Heart Farms (hereafter referred to as the Project), is located in Fort Collins, Colorado in Larimer County (Figure 1). The property is situated to the north of West Elizabeth Street and to the west of South Overland Trail, and is surrounded by residential communities and natural areas. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal runs west of the Project site and is lined by Crack willow (Salix fragilis) and Russian Olive (Elaegnus angustifolia). Currently The Project is used for residential and agricultural purposes and is proposed to undergo development for the establishment of the Pole Star Community. In November of 2021, AloTerra Restoration Services (AloTerra) delineated 0.05 acres of wetland which occurs north of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal in the southwest corner of The Project. The surface and ground water associated with the farmland flows south towards West Elizabeth Street. Uplands within the Project contains several old growth cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides) and are dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and agricultural crops. Riparian areas are dominated by canary reedgrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) and baltic rush (Juncus balticus), with limited surface water. Figure 1: Location of Happy Heart Farms in Fort Collins, Colorado. Pole Star Wildlife Review 2 | P a g e Purpose The purpose of this wildlife review is to assess the probable effects on federally listed species and sensitive species in the proposed Project site, per Section 7 of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Under the actions, consultations, and recommendations of the USFWS, in cooperation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The authorized organization must ensure, with the best scientific data available, that there will be no negative change or destruction to critical habitats in the Project area (USFWS, 2013). Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species On November 1, 2021 an official species list was documented by U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation IPAC: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ was obtained by using known ranges of federally listed species in The Project area. A list was also unofficially obtained from the 2016 Colorado Natural Heritage Program database by looking at known sightings of sensitive species near Kingfisher Wetland project area. On November 1, 2021 an AloTerra Restoration Services field technician conducted a site visit in order to assess suitable habitat for known listed and sensitive animal species. Table 1 Provides a record of the federally listed Federally listed species that could occur within the area of the proposed project (20 acres). The table includes (a) the common name of the species (b) the scientific name of the species (c) the status of the species in question (d) whether or not the species should be excluded and (e) the reasoning why the species should be excluded. The reasoning of excluding species from the list of concerned species is given based off a variety of reasons including: 1) No suitable habitat was found during site visit, The range of the species in is such that the species is highly unlikely to not known near occur within the Project site; 2) No suitable habitat was found during the site review; and/or 3) No records for the species exist within the Project site. Table 1. Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species that may occur or be affected by actions within the Project. Common Name Species Status Species Excluded Reason for Exclusion Mammals Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened No Species and habitat are not present. Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Birds Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Yes Critical habitat does not overlap with project site Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with project site Least tern Sterna antillarum Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with project site Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Yes Range does not overlap with project site Fish Pole Star Wildlife Review 3 | P a g e Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Yes Species and habitat are not present. Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Plants Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Ute ladies-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Western prairie fringed orchid Plantanthera praeclara Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula Endangered Yes Found in higher elevation range (8,000-8,300 ft) Sourced from IPAC :http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ website. Note- Some species may be affected downstream from water source. *There are no federally designated critical habitats within the Project area. Federally Listed Species Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM) Since 1998, the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) has been federally listed as threatened by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. In Colorado, they are also listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Needs, considered sensitive by the US Forest Service, and critically imperiled according to the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Declining PMJM populations are due to predation, habitat degradation, and fragmentation. In Colorado, the PMJM can be found up to elevations around 7,000 feet east of the Front Range, and west to the shortgrass prairie. (USFWS, 2013) Preble’s meadow jumping mice are found in areas with natural hydrological processes that create a dense riparian area with biologically diverse herbaceous plants. PMJM have been found in environments with a variety of plant species, frequently in areas with a thick layer of grasses and forbs that create cover. Studies show that the specific species composition of herbaceous plants is not as important to supporting populations, but that suitable habitat needs to have a higher percentage of ground cover in the vicinity to open water. Most PMJM were found within areas with a higher density of the shrub layer consisting mostly of willows. The mice use adjacent grassy uplands as far as approximately 300 feet from the 100-year floodplain to “hibernate” during the colder months. These nests are called hibernacula and can be found under the cover of snowberry, chokecherry, cottonwoods, gooseberry, and other willow species. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (1973) prevents any funded or authorized agency to take action that would negatively affect lands labeled as PMJM Critical habitat. Critical Habitat is defined by areas currently occupied by the species or potential areas in which the species could establish. In 2013, The Fish and Wildlife Service revised the critical habitat designation for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (shapefiles found at: https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/es/species/mammals/preble/CRITICAL%20HABITAT/CRITICALHABITATindex.htm.). The approximate 50,000 acres designated for critical habitat occur adjacent to streams and rivers in the Colorado foothill and mountain regions. PMJM critical habitat is located in Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer and Teller Counties (USFWS, 2014). Currently there is no critical habitat designated in the Project area (USFWS, 2010). Although the Project area does not have optimal habitat Pole Star Wildlife Review 4 | P a g e due to lack of desired upland vegetation, presence of PMJM cannot be confirmed without a thorough survey of the area. Rare Plants The rare plant survey resulted in no evidence of Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies’-tresses) or Gaura neomexicana var. coloradenesis (Colorado Butterfly Plant) in the Project area. Sensitive Species The sensitive species list is derived from the U.S. Forest Service (https://www.fs.usda.gov) and Colorado Parks and Wildlife data on present sensitive species ranges and distributions (USFS, 2005). The Regional Forester’s sensitive list is evaluated by examining viable risk of species; these species are categorized as R2 sensitive, not R2 sensitive, or, not a concern. Suitable habitat was also determined by a site visit conducted by AloTerra Restoration Services on November 01, 2021. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act no activity that “takes, transports, barters, or exports the listed migratory birds or eagles is permissible unless it is sanctioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The sensitive species list includes migratory birds that could use The Project area as a breeding, over-wintering, or stopover site. The species found in Table 2 below are compiled from lists of at-risk species that have potential habitat or occurrence in the Project area, specifically in the vicinity of the documented wetland. The table is organized as followed: (a) The common name of the species, (b) The scientific name of the species, (c) The status of the species in question, (d) Whether or not the species should be excluded, and (e) The reasons why the species should be excluded. Table 2. Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species that may occur or be affected by the actions within the Project. Common name Species Status Species Excluded Reasons for exclusion Mammals Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Forest Service Sensitive Yes Found in coniferous forest and mixed pine Townsend’s big- eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Forest Service Sensitive Yes Habitat requirements are not in range Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in the Project site White-tailed prairie dog (Ocynomys leucurus) Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in the Project site Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Range does not overlap with project site Swift fox Vulpes velox Forest Service Sensitive No Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Forest Service Sensitive No Cassin’s sparrow Aimophila cassinii Bird of Conservation Concern Yes Range does not overlap with project site Pole Star Wildlife Review 5 | P a g e Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Bird of Conservation Concern Yes Range does not overlap with project site Black Swift Cypseloides niger Forest Service Sensitive Yes Habitat requires cliffs limited in Colorado Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Site location does not overlap with species range Sandhill Crane Antigone canadensis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Forest Service Sensitive No Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Federal Species of Concern No Greater sage- grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Found in sage brush habitat Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Forest Service Sensitive Yes Native species range does not meet area requirements Fish Plains Minnow Hybognathus plactius State Endangered Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus latipinnis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Amphibians Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Forest Service Sensitive No Plains leopard frog Lithobates blairi Forest Service Sensitive Yes Range does not overlap with project site Species list was sourced from U.S. Forest Service https://www.fs.usda.gov Rocky Mountain Region and USFWS Migratory birds for the Mountain-Prairie Region updated 2017. Migratory bird list was sourced from USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php. Sensitive Species Details Mammals Swift Fox Historically Swift fox (Vulpes velox) populations declined due to habitat fragmentation and loss, competition, trapping, and collateral damage when trying to kill wolves. In Colorado they are listed as Special Concern and classified as a sensitive species by USFS Region 2. They range throughout western United States but are found in higher abundances in Colorado than Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota, where they still have not reached historical population levels. The fox appears to not be affected by heavily grazed ecosystems and can be found in a variety of habitat types that include short- grass and mid-grass prairies, including a variety of agricultural land types. In these areas, vegetation is typically dominated by blue grama, buffalograss, western wheatgrass, and sagebrush. Fox dens have been found in areas with low vegetation on slight slopes in well -drained sites, with soil types that include silty loam or loam. The species are not directly reliant on riparian areas and can be found up to 3 Pole Star Wildlife Review 6 | P a g e miles away from any source of water. (Marks et al., 2005). No dens were sighted in the Project area. Due to the size of the proposed Project area, there should be minimal impacts to swift fox populations. Birds Bald Eagle The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is found only in North America (CPW, n.d.). Populations declined in the early-mid 20th century due to impacts from pesticides (mainly DDT), disturbance and loss of trees for nesting habitat. The eagle was consequently placed on the Endangered Species List. However, with the ban on the pesticide DDT and protection of nesting habitat, the eagles have substantially recovered, with Endangered status reduced to Threatened in 1995 and with further recovery was de-listed nationally. The bald eagle was removed from the Colorado list of threatened and endangered species in 2009. Bald eagles can be found throughout much of Colorado during both summer and winter and can be observed near reservoirs and major rivers such as the South Platte. Eagles will roost and nest in large cottonwood trees, roosting communally in the winter for warmth. Bald eagles have a varied diet, with nests often found near water in tall trees, building nests that can be 7 to 8 feet across. No nests or signs of bald eagles were seen during site visit on November 01, 2021. Any bald eagles that may be using the area should not be negatively affected by the Project, especially if large trees can be protected from construction activities. Northern Harrier The Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) is a Tier 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Colorado and a Forest Service Sensitive Species in Region 2. These raptors reside in a variety of habitats year-around, including grasslands and marshes. They reside throughout Colorado, with higher densities on the eastern plains, short-grass prairies and western valleys. In the eastern plains these birds breed in a variety of ecosystems, preferring large wetlands (>250 acres) with dense vegetation (7-10 inches in height). Nests are found either on the ground or on a platform usually near open water. More specifically, nests are commonly found hidden in wetland vegetation, where cover is taller than 60 cm. (Slater, 2005) During the site visit on November 01, 2021 no northern harrier was sighted, and no nests were found. The Project development is unlikely to negatively impact the species due to the species range and scope of the Project. Swainson’s Hawk The Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is found throughout Colorado in open areas, usually native short and tall grass prairies, and agricultural lands. Since the 1980s, Swainson Hawk populations declined in many parts of its range due to removal of riparian habitat, and lack of nest site availability (Bechard, 2010). The raptors’ home range varies between about 170 to 21,550 acres depending on the amount of forage and water available. Nests will frequently be found in a lone tree or post in these grasslands, but they can also be found along riparian areas among a cluster of trees within their home range. The nests are found in a variety tree species including cottonwood (Populus sp.), willows (Salix sp.), sycamores (Platanus sp.), and walnut (Juglans sp.) These hawks are a migratory bird species, listed on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, traveling from North America to breed in the summer to South America for wintering. (Woodbridge, 1998) This raptor has a high tolerance for human disturbance and can be found in areas with high human activity, although there can be nest abandonment if there is high-intensity disturbance or construction near a nesting tree. When nests occur, they are usually found 15-30 feet above ground. AloTerra Restoration Service’s wildlife technician conducted a field assessm ent on November 01, 2021 and found no nests in the proposed construction area. The Swainson’s Hawk should not be negatively affected by the Project due to the extensive size of their home range and minimal effect to potential nesting sites from construction activities. Pole Star Wildlife Review 7 | P a g e Amphibians Northern Leopard Frog Northern leopard frogs (Lithobates blairi) are found statewide in Colorado and are currently listed as a Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Population declines are due to climate change, invasive diseases, habitat loss, pollution, and predation. The frogs can be found in the western United States in elevations up to 11,000 feet. This species can inhabit a variety of riparian areas including stream channels, sloughs, reservoirs, gravel pits, and oxbows. For breeding and foraging purposes, the frogs prefer dense vegetation with heights around 6 to 12 inches and more than 30 percent cover. Northern leopard frog breeding sites commonly occur in semi-permanent ponds or wetlands with water depths to 25 to 40 inches. Water quality is an important factor for most amphibians, needing unpolluted sites with water that is well oxygenated and pH balanced (6.1-7) (CPW, 2005). Through the winter, leopard frogs hibernate on the bottom of ponds located beneath 1-1.5 feet of rock where water depths were at least 2 feet. Construction associated with The Project may impact individuals that were not identified during the general survey, but due to the size and location of the construction project it is not likely to result in a decline in population toward federal listing. Other Wildlife As previously discussed in the sections on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Sensitive Species of Concern, the proposed restoration project should minimally impact populations of species that have ranges that do or may potentially overlap with the Project area. Due to low vegetation species diversity and poor riparian conditions the Project area does not provide any critical habitat to federally listed or sensitive species. The mature cottonwoods provide some habitat for song birds and raptors in the spring and summer including; great horned owls, American kestrels, western tanagers, dark-eyed juncos, and variety of sparrows. No ground nests or raptor nests were found on the site during site visit of November 01, 2021. There were signs of raccoons (Procyon lotor), great blue herons (Ardea Herodias) and coyote (Canis latrans). A young male mule deer was seen along the canal corridor and droppings were found throughout the Project. Many common animal species have been observed throughout the Project including garter snakes, Canadian geese, great horned owls, Eurasian doves, blue jays, Northern flickers, golden finches, and House sparrows. Ornate box turtles and Mallard ducks have been sighted in the pond north of the Project. This wetland area and old growth trees could potentially be suitable habitat for songbird nesting/feeding and should therefore be protected during any future construction. Mitigation Measures Construction should avoid impacting important suitable habitat for sensitive or endangered species. In order to minimally impact sensitive or migratory bird populations, it is important to avoid impacting any potential nesting sites (cottonwood trees or thick vegetation on the surface). Pole Star Wildlife Review 8 | P a g e References Bechard, M.J., Houston, C.S., Sarasola, J.H., and England, A.S., (2010). Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), In: The Birds of North America (Rodewald, P. G., [Ed.]), Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species- Account/bna/species/swahaw. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (2005). Leopard Frogs: Assessing Habitat Quality for Wildlife Species in Colorado Wetlands. Retrieved from https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/PrioritySpecies/Factsheet-and- Habitat-Scorecard_LeopardFrogs.pdf. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (n.d.) Species Profiles. Retrieved from http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx Marks, R., Paul, R., Rewa, C., and Peak, M., (2005). Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) Wildlife Habitat Council and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Grasslands/SwiftFox.pdf Swenson, J. E., K. L. Alt, and R. L. Eng. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildl. Monogr. 95: 1 -46. Slater, G.L. and Rock, C., (2005). Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182007.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Critical Habitat: Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. USFWS Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species Program. http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/preble/CRITICAL_HABITAT/CRITIALHABITATindex.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. 4310-55-S U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions and Recommended Conservation Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), the Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis), and the Colorado butterfly plant (Guara neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) from Emergency Flood Response Activities Along Streams, Rivers, or Transportation Corridors in Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Ecological Services Field Office. September 24, 2013. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), (2015). Sensitive Species List: Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5390116 Pole Star Wildlife Review 9 | P a g e Woodbridge, B., (1998). Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In: The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian-associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Retrieved from http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v -2.html Appendix D: Draft 60% Design 60% Design DATE:Revegetation and ConstructionNotesSHEET NO.:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, COPREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:E1 05/25/2023 GENERAL NOTES: 1.The contractor shall locate all utilities on-site, coordinate construction with all utility owners and be responsible for protecting all utilities during construction. The contractor must schedule any required utility adjustments with the utility owner to eliminate conflicts. 2.The contractor shall conform to all plan and specifications shown herein and notify the project engineer immediately upon the discovery of conflicts or changes not consistent with the contract documents. 3.The contractor shall have copies of any required permits on site at all times and comply with all requirements of all permits at all times. These permits include any federal, state, or local permits. 4.The contractor is responsible for, but not limited to, submitting plans for delivery and storage of materials and site equipment as well as for site access, erosion control, traffic control, water control and de-watering plans, prior to construction. 5.The contractor is responsible for protecting all existing site infrastructure and vegetation as directed by the project engineer, including but not limited to, concrete, asphalt, site circulation paths, curb and gutter, trees, shrubs, grasses and all soft or hardscape outside of the immediate construction area and its replacement in the event of damage to equal or better condition. 6.The contractor is responsible for construction survey including, but not limited to, construction staking and protection of control point locations and elevations. Control points shall be the responsibility of the contractor to replace in the event of damage/lost control. 7.In areas of disturbance, the contractor shall remove and stockpile the top 6" of topsoil and replace and re-vegetate after construction. Salvaged topsoil shall be stockpiled in areas that shall not interfere with construction phases and at least 15 feet away from areas of concentrated flows or pavement. The slopes of the stockpile shall not exceed 2:1 horizontal to vertical. A silt fence or other adequate erosion control shall be installed around the perimeter of each stockpile. Topsoil from any riparian areas shall be stockpiled separately from other topsoil and shall be reinstalled in riparian areas. 8.If previously unknown historic or archeological remains are discovered during construction, the contractor must immediately stop work and notify both the owner's representative and prime contractor of these items and work may not commence until written approval is given to proceed. 9.The contractor must be available and provide all necessary resources for periodic inspections from regulatory agencies, including but not limited to the United States army corps of engineers or the Colorado Department of Public Health and environment, at any time during the construction time period. This period includes pre-construction and post-construction. 10.The contractor must meet all requirements for bmp's as described in the construction specifications and permits. 11.The contractor is responsible for monitoring all site safety requirements and regulations through the entire duration of on-site construction activities. 12.The contractor shall obtain at their expense any and all discharge permits necessary to perform the work described herein, which may be subject to the provisions of the national pollutant discharge elimination system permits. 13.The contractor is responsible for managing a safe site in accordance with local codes and regulations. EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES: 1.All erosion control (i.e., control) measures shall be checked, and repaired as necessary, monthly in dry periods, and within 24 hours after any rainfall at the site of 0.75 inches or greater within a 24-hour period. Daily checking and, if necessary, repairing shall be done during prolonged rainfalls. The permittee shall maintain written records of such checks and repairs on-site at all times, and records shall be subject to inspection at any reasonable time. 2.The construction entrance shall be maintained as required to prevent silt/sediment from leaving the site. This includes but is not limited to wash down of the construction entrance, installing and utilizing a vehicle wash down area, installing additional stone, etc. 3.Any and all silt/sedimentation shall be frequently removed from the silt fence, ditches, check dams and retention areas. At the end of construction, these areas shall be completely free of silt/sedimentation and shall be stabilized as stated in the plans and specifications. 4.All bmps shall be designed and installed in accordance with the colorado handbook for erosion control, sediment control and stormwater management on construction sites and urban areas, local standards for erosion and sediment control and the plans and specifications. If conflicts arise between these requirements, the more stringent shall apply. 5.Bmps shown along the perimeter of the disturbed areas shall be installed prior to disturbance activity. Other bmps shall be installed as soon as construction sequences allow. 6.Temporary diversion of runoff/runon water shall be installed as needed to facilitate construction or as directed on-site by the engineer. 7.All disturbed areas shall be permanently stabilized immediately after the completion of the grading operation. Areas requiring erosion matting shall be seeded and amended with nutrients according to the appropriate specifications in the plan set and seed mix sheet, prior to the installation of the matting. 8.Temporary stabilization of disturbed areas must be initiated immediately whenever work toward project completion and final stabilization of any portion of the site has temporarily ceased and will not resume for a period exceeding thirteen (13) calendar days. Those areas shall be seeded and mulched in accordance with the plans and specifications. 9.Necessary measures shall be taken to produce and maintain an acceptable stand of native vegetation per plans and warranty standards. Said measures are described in the revegetation notes and revegetation and bioengineering details contained within these plans. 10.Contractor is responsible for keeping mud and debris off city/state streets and row. Cleanup is required daily. 11.Contractor shall keep a copy of the NPDES construction general permit and the "construction best management practices plan" on site at all times for the life of the project. 12.All hazardous substances used for this project (paint, oil, grease, and other petroleum products) shall be stored in accordance with spcc regulations. These substances shall be stored away from drains and ditches in watertight containers. Disposal of these substances shall be in accordance with regulations. Daily inspections shall be performed for leak detection. If leaks occur, appropriate action shall be taken to contain and remediate the spill. Adequate trash containers shall be kept on site for the disposal of construction materials waste. Necessary measures shall be taken to prevent any trash or other pollutants from entering "waters of the United States." 13.All temporary measures shall be removed once acceptable permanent stabilization is achieved. The engineer shall determine if the permanent stabilization is acceptable. REVEGETATION/BIOENGINEERING NOTES: 1.All seed must be inspected by the contractor prior to installation, and all tags must be maintained for documentation. All seed must be labeled as "certified" by the Colorado seed growers association and shall not include the presence of noxious or invasive species prohibited under the Colorado seed act. Seed must be free of Colorado state noxious and Colorado A and B listed weed propagules shall not contain more than 0.01% by dry weight of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), or Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis). Project engineer or their representative shall approve all seed mixes for weed content and substitutions before seed is purchased. Seed identification and certification tags shall be provided to the project manager for review and approval prior to use. 2.A restoration ecologist should be consulted when reviewing weed-free seed, soil, mulch, and soil amendment products, including the list of potential weeds present in the product in question. 3.Seeding shall be broadcast at rates listed in seed mix, raked into the soil surface to a depth of between 0.125 and 0.25 inches deep, and covered with mulch at a rate that attains 70% soil coverage and is no deeper than 1". 4.THE SEED MIXES SHALL BE APPLIED TO AREAS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SET. 5.Proper labeling for each bale or lot of mulch used is required. Project manager has the right to inspect and reject bales if they are suspected to contain unacceptable weed contents. Specifically, smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis), fireweed (Kochia scoparia), and other aggressive exotic plant species shall not be present in mulches used for the project. A restoration ecologist or botanist should be consulted when reviewing the weed-free mulch product. A list of potential weeds present in the mulch and the product information shall be provided to the project manager and project designer for review and approval prior to use. Hay, regardless of the source, shall not be used as a mulch. E1 Fort Collins Specific Erosion Control Requirements General erosion control requirements: these notes are a summary for the legal requirements, that are set forth in the Fort Collins stormwater criteria manual (FCSCM), and that any conflict is resolved by the more stringent requirement controlling. 1) The property owner, owner’s representative, developer, design engineer, general contractor, sub-contractors, or similar title for the developing entity (here after referred to as the developer) has provided these erosion control materials in accordance with erosion control criteria set forth in the manual as an attempt to identify erosion, sediment, and other potential pollutant sources associated with these construction activities and preventing those pollutants from leaving the project site as an Illicit discharge. Full city requirements and are outlined and clarified in the manual under chapter 4: construction control measures and should be used to identify and define what is needed on a project. 2) The developer shall make themselves thoroughly familiar with the provisions and the content of the specifications laid out in the manual, the development agreement, the erosion control materials compiled for this project, and the following notes as all these materials are applicable to this project. 3) The developer shall implement and maintain control measures for all potential pollutants from the start of land disturbing activities until final stabilization of the construction site. 4) The city erosion control inspector shall be notified at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the desired start of any construction activities on this site to allow adequate time for on-site confirmation (initial inspection which can take up to two business days after receiving the request) that the site is in fact protected from sediment and pollutants discharges off site. Please contact erosion@fcgov.com early to schedule those initial erosion control inspections well in advance so that demolition, clearing, grubbing, tree removal, and scraping may begin without delay. Failure to receive an on-site confirmation before construction activities commence is an automatic “notice of violation” and can result in further enforcement actions. 5) The developer shall proactively provide all appropriate control measures to prevent damage to adjacent downstream and leeward properties. This includes but is not limited to: trees, shrubs, lawns, walks, pavements, roadways, structures, creeks, wetlands, streams, rivers, and utilities that are not designed for removal, relocation, or replacement in the course of construction. 6) At all times the developer shall be responsible to ensure adequate control measures are designed, selected, installed, maintain, repaired, replaced, and ultimately removed in order to prevent and control erosion suspension, sediment transportation, and pollutant discharge as a result of construction activities associated with this project. 7) All applicable control measures based upon the sequencing and/or phasing of the project shall be installed prior to those construction activities commencing. 8) As dynamic conditions (due to the nature, timing, sequence, and phasing of construction) in the field may warrant control measures in addition, or different, to what is shown on these plans, the developer shall at all times be responsible to implement the control measures that are most effective with the current state and progress of construction. The developer shall implement whatever measures are determined necessary, and/or as directed by the city erosion control inspector. The developer shall ensure that all erosion control plans (maps) or SWMP documents are updated to reflect the current site conditions, with updates being initialed and dated. These site inspections and site condition updates shall be made available upon request by the city. 9) All listings, provisions, materials, procedures, activities, site work and the like articulated in this or other written site-specific documents (including but not limited to the erosion control reports, development agreements, landscape, and drainage materials) shall meet or exceed the most restrictive language for city, county, state, and federal regulations with regards to erosion, sediment, pollutant, and other pollution source control measures. The developer shall be responsible to comply with all of these aforementioned laws and regulations. 10) The developer shall ensure that all appropriate permits (CDPS general permit stormwater discharges associated with construction activity, dewatering, clean water act, army corps of engineers’ 404 wetlands mitigation permit, etc.) Have been attained prior to the relevant activity has begun. These permits or copies shall be made available upon request by the city. 11) The developer shall furnish all conveniences and assistances to aid the erosion control inspectors of materials, workmanship, records, and self-inspections, etc. of the control measures involved in the construction activities. 12) The developer shall request clarification of all apparent site construction issues that may arise due to inconsistencies in construction plans for the site or site conditions around the selected control measures by contacting the erosion control inspector. The erosion control inspector will not be responsible for any explanations, interpretations, or supplementary data provided by others. 13) All control measures shall be installed in accordance with the manual. 14) The city reserves the right to require additional control measures as site conditions warrant, to the extent authorized by relevant legal authority. 15) As with any construction standards, occasions may arise where the minimum erosion control standards are either inappropriate or cannot be justified. In these cases, a variance to these standards may be applied for pursuant to the terms, conditions, and procedures of the manual. Inspection 16) The contractor shall inspect site pollutant sources and implement control measures at a minimum of once every two weeks during construction and within 24 hours following a precipitation event. Documentation of each inspection shall be recorded and retained by the contractor. 17) All temporary control measures shall be cleaned, repaired, or reconstructed as necessary in order to assure continual performance of their intended function. All retained sediments, particularly those on paved roadway surfaces, shall be removed and disposed of in a manner and location so as not to cause their release into any drainage way. 18) Any control measure may be substituted for another standard control measure so long as that control measure is equal to, or of greater protection than the original control measure that was to be used in that location. (ex. silt fence, for wattles, or for compact berms) wattle alone on commercial construction sites have shown to be an ineffective substitute for silt fence or compact berms unless it is accompanied by a construction fence to prevent vehicle traffic. 19) Any implementation or replacement of existing control measures for a non-standard control, or alternative control measure, shall require the review and acceptance by the city erosion control staff before the measure will be allowed to be used on this project. These control measures’ details shall be submitted, reviewed and accepted to be in accordance with the erosion control criteria based upon the functionality and effectiveness in accordance with sound engineering and hydrological practices, land disturbance, stockpiles, and storage of soils 20) There shall be no earth-disturbing activity outside the limits designated on the accepted plans. Off road staging areas or stockpiles must be preapproved by the city. Disturbances beyond these limits will be restored to original condition. 21) Pre-disturbance vegetation shall be identified, protected, and retained wherever possible. Removal or disturbance of existing vegetation shall be limited to the area required for immediate construction operations, and for the shortest practical period of time. This should include sequencing and phasing construction activities in a way so that the soil is not exposed for long periods of time by schedule or limit grading to small areas. This should also include when practical advancing the schedule on stabilization activities such that landscaping takes place shortly if not immediately after grading has occurred. Vegetation efforts shall start as soon as possible to return the site to a stabilized condition. Sensitive areas should avoid clearing and grading activities as much possible. 22) All exposed soils or disturbed areas are considered a potential pollutant and shall have control measures implemented on the site to prevent materials from leaving the site. 23) All soils exposed during land disturbing activity (stripping, grading, utility installations, stockpiling, filling, etc.) shall be kept in a roughened condition at all times by equipment tracking, scarifying or disking the surface on a contour with a 2 to 4 inch minimum variation in soil surface until mulch, vegetation, and/or other permanent erosion control is installed. 24) No soil stockpile shall exceed ten (10) feet in height. All soil stockpiles shall be protected from sediment transport through the use of surface roughening, watering, and down gradient perimeter controls. All soil stockpiles shall be protected from sediment transport by wind in accordance with municipal code §12-150. All stockpiles shall be flattened to meet grade or removed from site as soon as practical, and no later than the completion of construction activities or abandonment of the project. All off-site stockpile storage locations in city limits shall have a stockpile permit from the city engineering department prior to using the area to store material. If frequent access from hardscape to the stockpile is needed a structural tracking control measure shall be implemented. 25) All required control measures shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity (stockpiling, stripping, grading, etc.). All of the required erosion control measures must be installed at the appropriate time in the construction sequence as indicated in the approved project schedule, construction plans, and erosion control report. 26) All inlets, curb-cuts, culverts, and other storm sewer infrastructure which could be potentially impacted by construction activities shall be protected with control measures. Material accumulated from this control measure shall be promptly removed and in cases where the protection has failed, the pipes shall be thoroughly cleaned out. 27) All streams, stream corridors, buffers, woodlands, wetlands, or other sensitive areas shall be protected from impact by any construction activity through the use of control measures. 28) All exposed dirt shall have perimeter control. Any perimeter controls that drain off or has the ability to be tracked onto the nearby hardscape shall have some form of effective sediment control as the, or as part of the, perimeter control. 29) All exposed slopes should be protected. All exposed steep slopes (steeper than 3:1 h:v) shall be protected from erosion and sediment transport through use of control measures. 30) No soils shall remain exposed by land disturbing activity for more than thirty (30) days after activity has ceased before required temporary seeding or permanent erosion control (e.g. Seed/mulch, landscaping, etc.) is installed. This is not just limited to projects that are abandoned; this includes any project that is temporarily halted, and no immediate activity is to resume within the next thirty (30) days, unless otherwise approved by the city erosion control inspector. During a season when seeding does not produce vegetative cover, another temporary erosion control shall be implemented with or until temporary seeding or permanent erosion control can be performed. 31) All individual lots shall have effective sediment controls located on the street side and any down gradient side. Typically most lots drain to the front yet on those cases where houses are along a pond or drainage swale have the lot drain in a different direction than the street, those individual lots will need protection on that down gradient side to prevent sediment from leaving the lot. See the individual lot details for further clarification. Vehicle Tracking 32) At all points where vehicles exit or leave the exposed dirt area on to a hardscape or semi hardscape (concrete, asphalt, road base, etc.) shall have installed at least one structural tracking control measure to prevent vehicle tracking. All areas not protected by an adequate perimeter control shall be considered a point where vehicles exit the site. Access points should be limited to as few entrances as possible (all perimeter areas shall be protected from tracking activities). 33) In all areas that the structural tracking control measures fail to prevent vehicle tracking, collection and proper disposal of that material is required. All inlets located near access points and affected by tracking activities shall be prevented from the introduction of sediment into the drainage system. 34) City municipal code §20-62, among other things, prohibits the tracking, dropping, or depositing of soils or any other material onto city streets by or from any source. City municipal code, §26-498, among other things, prohibits the discharge of pollutants on public or private property if there is a significant potential for migration of such pollutant. Therefore, all tracked or deposited materials (intentional or inadvertent) are not permitted to remain on the street or gutter and shall be removed and legally disposed of by the developer in a timely and immediate manner. Dirt ramps installed in the curb-lines are not exempt to these sections of code and shall not be permitted in the street right of way (public or private). 35) If repeated deposit of material occurs on a site, additional structural tracking controls may be required of the developer by the city erosion control inspector. Loading and unloading operations 36) The developer shall apply control measure to limit traffic (site worker or public) impacts and proactively locate material delivered to the site in close proximity to the work area or immediately incorporated in the construction to limit operational impacts to disturbed areas, vehicle tracking, and sediment deposition that could impact water quality outdoor storage or construction site materials, building materials, fertilizers, and chemicals. 37) Any materials of a non-polluting nature (steel, rock, brick, lumber, etc.) Shall be inspected for any residue coming off the material during routine inspection and will generally be located where practical at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim drainage ways. 38) Any high environmental impact pollutant materials that have a high likelihood to result in discharge when in contact with stormwater (lubricants, fuels, paints, solvents, detergents, fertilizers, chemical sprays, bags of cement mix, etc.) Should not be kept on site where practical. When not practical, they should be stored inside (vehicle, trailer, connex, building, etc.) And out of contact with stormwater or stormwater runoff. Where not available, they shall be stored outside in a raised (high spots or on pallets), covered (plastic or tarped), and sealed (leak proof container) in secondary containment location. The secondary containment or other control measure shall be adequately sized, located, where practical, at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim stormwater structures or drainage ways and shall be monitored as part of the routine inspections. Vehicle and equipment maintenance and fueling 39) Parking, refueling, and maintenance of vehicles and equipment should be limited in one area of the site to minimize possible spills and fuel storage areas. This area shall be located, where practical, at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim stormwater structures or drainage ways and shall be monitored as part of the routine inspections. All areas shall keep spill kits and supplies close. Significant dust or particulate generating process 40) The property must be actively preventing the emission of fugitive dust at all times during construction and vegetation activities. All land disturbing activities that result in fugitive dust shall be in accordance with municipal code §12-150 to reduce the impacts to adjacent properties and community health. All required practices shall be implemented, and additional ones shall be followed. These practices include watering the sites and discontinuing construction activities until the wind subsides as determined by any city inspectors. Concrete truck / equipment washing, including the concrete truck chute and associated fixtures and equipment 41) All concrete and equipment washing shall use structural control measures appropriate to the volume of wash and frequency of use. These control measures shall be located, where practical, at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim stormwater structures or drainage ways and shall be monitored as part of the routine inspections. These areas shall be clearly identified and protected from any wash from leaving the control measure. If frequent access from hardscape to the control measure is to occur, a structural tracking control measure shall be implemented. These control measures shall be frequently cleaned out. 42) The developer is responsible for ensuring washing activity is taking place at the appropriate control measure and site workers are not washing or dumping wash water on to the dirt or other uncontrolled locations. Dedicated asphalt and concrete batch plants 43) Dedicated asphalt and concrete batch plants are not acceptable on construction sites within the city of Fort Collins without an expressed written request and plan to reduce pollutants associated with that type of activity and approval by the city of Fort Collins specifically the erosion control inspector. The developer shall inform the erosion control inspection staff of any dedicated asphalt, or concrete batch plants that is to be used on site. Concrete saw cutting materials 44) Saw cutting material shall be in accordance with municipal code §12-150 for air emissions and all water applications to the saw cutting shall prevent material from leaving the immediate site and collected. These cutting locations, once dried, shall be swept and scraped of all material and shall have proper and legal disposal. Waste materials storage and sanitary facilities 45) Trash, debris, material salvage, and/or recycling areas shall be, where practical, at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim stormwater structures or drainage ways and shall be monitored as part of the routine inspections. These facilities should be located out of the wind and covered as able. Where not able to cover, locating said areas on the side of other structures to reduce exposure to winds, and follow maximum loading guidelines as marked on the container. The developer is required to practice good housekeeping to keep the construction site free of litter, construction debris, and leaking containers. 46) Sanitary facilities shall be prevented from tipping through the use of anchoring to the ground or lashing to a stabilized structure. These facilities shall also be located as far as practical from an inlet, curb cut, drainage swale or other drainage conveyances to prevent material transport from leaving the local area. This consists of the facility being located, where practical, at least fifty (50) feet from any permanent or interim drainage ways. Other site operations and potential spill areas 47) Spills: for those minor spills that; are less than the state’s reportable quantity for spills, stay within the permitted area, and in no way threaten any stormwater conveyance, notify the city of Fort Collins utilities by email at erosion@fcgov.com or phone (970) 817-4770. For any significant, major, or hazardous spills, notify the city of Fort Collins utilities by phone only after emergency response (911) has been notified and is on route, county health department (LCDHE) has been notified through Larimer County sheriff dispatch (970) 416-1985, and the state spill hotline incident reporting have been contacted 1-877-518-5608. Written documentation shall be provided to the city within 5 days of the event. All spills shall be cleaned up immediately. 48) Selection of “plastic welded” erosion control blankets shall not be used in areas that wildlife, such as snakes, are likely to be located as these have proven to cause entrapment issues. Final stabilization and project completion 49) Any stormwater facilities used as a temporary control measure will be restored and storm sewer lines will be cleaned upon completion of the project and before turning the maintenance over to the owner, homeowners association (HOA), or other party responsible for long term maintenance of those facility. 50) All final stabilization specifications shall be done in accordance with the manual, chapter 4: construction control measures. 51) All disturbed areas designed to be vegetated shall be amended, seeded & mulched, or landscaped as specified in the landscape plans within 14 working days of final grading. 52) Soil in all vegetated (landscaped or seeded) areas, including parkways and medians shall comply with all requirements set forth in sections 12-130 through 12-132 of the city municipal code, as well as section 3.8.21 for the city land use code. 53) All seeding shall refer to landscaping plans for species mixture and application rates and depths requirements. 54) All seed shall be drilled where practical to a depth based upon the seed type. Broadcast seeding shall be applied at double the rate as prescribed for drill seeding and shall be lightly hand raked after application. Hydroseeding may be substituted for drill seeding on slopes steeper than 3(h):1(v) or on other areas not practical to drill seed and crimp and mulch. All hydroseeding must be conducted as two separate processes of seeding and tackifying. 55) All seeded areas must be mulched within twenty-four (24) after planting. All mulch shall be mechanically crimped and or adequately applied tackifier. The use of crimped mulch or tackifier may require multiple re-applications if not properly installed or have weathered or degraded before vegetation has been established. Areas of embankments having slopes greater than or equal to 3h:1v shall be stabilized with an erosion mat or approved equal to ensure seed will be able to germinate on the steep slopes. During a season when seeding does not produce vegetative cover, another temporary erosion control shall be implemented along with, or until, temporary seeding or permanent erosion control can be performed. 56) The developer shall warranty and maintain all vegetative measures for two growing seasons after installation or until seventy percent (70%) vegetative cover has been established, whichever is longer and meets all the criteria outlined in the Fort Collins stormwater criteria manual chapter 4: construction control measures. 57) The developer shall maintain, monitor, repair, and replace any and all applicable control measures until final stabilization has been obtained. All control measures must remain until such time as all upstream contributing pollutant sources have been vegetated or removed from the site. When any control measure is removed, the developer shall be responsible for the cleanup and removal of all sediment and debris from that control measure. At the point at which the site has been deemed stabilized and verified by city erosion control inspector, all temporary control measures can then be fully removed. All measures shall be removed within 30 days after final stabilization is achieved. 58) The responsible party shall maintain and keep current all payments or related forms of security for the erosion control escrow until 1) stabilization has been reached and 2) all control measures and/or BMPs have sediment materials collected and the control measure removed from the site. At that time the site will be considered completed and any remaining erosion control escrow shall be returned to the appropriate parties. Emergent Mesic Meadow Facultative Upland NHBZ Boundary Project Boundary Right of Way Pleaseant Valley Lake and Canal Toe of Bank Pleaseant Valley Lake and Canal Top of Bank JR Engineering Linework Proposed Grading Saddle Ridge Natural Area Property Boundaries LEGEND E1E2 60% Design 05/25/2023 Emergent/Mesic Meadow Seed Facultative Seed Upland Seed Emergent Containers Mesic Meadow Containers Facultative Containers NHBZ Boundary Project Boundary Right of Way Pleasant Valley Lake and Canal Toe of Bank Pleasant Valley Lake and Canal Top of Bank JR Engineering Linework Proposed Grading Saddle Ridge Natural Area Property Boundaries LEGEND E1E3 60% Design 05/25/2023 Curlex II Fibrenet Wood Straw NHBZ Boundary Project Boundary Right of Way JR Engineering Linework Proposed Grading Saddle Ridge Natural Area Property Boundaries LEGEND E1E4 60% Design 05/25/2023 Smooth Brome Treatment NHBZ Boundary Project Boundary Right of Way JR Engineering Linework Proposed Grading Saddle Ridge Natural Area Property Boundaries LEGEND EE15 60% Design 05/25/2023 DATE: Seed MixesSHEET NO.:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, COPREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:E1E6 60% Design 05/25/2023Final seed mixes, acreages, and percent mix to be provided with final plan set submittal. DATE:Plant PalettesSHEET NO.:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, COPREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:E1E7 60% Design 05/25/2023 DATE:TypicalsSHEET NO.:Pole Star Community, Fort Collins, COPREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY:EROSION CONTROL MATTING - STAKE LAYOUT DETAIL PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE Stakes or staples 18" o.c. in bottom of backfilled trench Erosion control blanket Stakes or staples EROSION CONTROL MATTING CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE Overlap 12" of upwind/upstream fabric on top of downwind/downstream fabric Overlap 12" of upgradient fabric on top of lower gradient fabric Stakes or staples Stake pattern detailDOWNHILLSLOPE Overlap (TYP.) 6" Erosion control blanket EROSION CONTROL MATTING - TRENCH DETAIL CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE Backfilled trench Stake or staple 6" 6" PREVAILING WIND AND/OR STREAM FLOW DIRECTION 6" NOTES: 1. 2. Remove all rocks and logs greater than 4” diameter (st size) and seed area before applying erosion matting. Before installing erosion matting, decompact and prepare seedbed as indicated in project-specic restoration notes. 3. Seed and harrow area. 4. Use 100% biodegradable matting. 5. 6. Lay blankets loosely and install according to project specications with staples or wood stakes to secure matting. Stakes will have a maximum spacing of 24” on all sides in a checkerboard pattern. 7. Upwind portions of erosion control shall overlap 12” over the top of downwind portion. When applicable, upgradient portions of blanket shall overlap 12” of downgradient portions of blanket. Stakes shall be installed in a zig-zag pattern every 12”. 8. Erions control blankets shall be keyed into soil at the top of slope and upstream ends of project to a depth of 6”. These trenches shall be secured using staples or wood stakes, 18” on center, then backlled with soil and tamped well. 9. Density of stakes is depending on slope; claried in project-specic restoration notes. SHRUB PLANTING CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE 25 - 50% Deeper than rootball 2x Rootball diameter NOTES: 1.Broken or crumbling rootballs will be rejected. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Care should be taken not to damage the shrub or rootball when removing it from its container. Backfll around rootball with soil that does not exceed specifcations in restoration notes. Excavate planting pit 2x the diameter fo the rootball and 25-50% deeper than height of rootball. Add backfll around rootball in 2” layers, watering each layer before applying the next of soil. Add 2” of mulch to cover 18” of the ground/dripline, leaving 1” open around trunk of shrub. Use part of the excavated soil to build an irrigation berm at the edge of dripline, about 1-2” high and 3-4” wide. Import soil as needed from nearby harvest sites. 2x depth of mulch Irrigation berm Undisturbed soil Amended backfll Container shrub HERBACEOUS CONTAINER PLANTING CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE 25 - 50% Deeper than rootball 2x Rootball diameter NOTES: 1.Broken or crumbling rootballs will be rejected. 2.Care should be taken not to damage the plant or rootball when removing it from its container. 3.Backf i ll around rootball with soil that does not exceed specifications in restoration notes. 4.Excavate planting pit 2x the diameter of the rootball and 25-50%deeper than height of rootball. 5. 6. 7. Add backf i ll around rootball in 2” layers, watering each layer before applying the next of soil. Add 2” of mulch to cover 18” of the ground/dripline, leaving 1” open around plant. Use part of the excavated soil to build an irrigation berm at the edge of dripline, about 1-2” high and 3-4” wide. Import soil as needed from nearby harvest sites. 2x depth of mulch Irrigation berm Undisturbed soil Compost Amended backf ll Herbaceous Container E1E8 60% Design 05/25/2023 Appendix E: USACE Jurisdictional Determination Letter DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BOULEVARD LITTLETON, COLORADO 80128-6901 November 1, 2022 RE: Approved Jurisdictional Determination, Pole Star Community, Corps File No. NWO-2022-01369-DEN Mrs. Sarah Smith AloTerra Restoration Services 320 East Vine Drive Ste. 314 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mrs. Smith: This letter is in reference to the property located at approximately 40.577°N, -105.129°W, in Larimer County, Colorado. The submittal dated September 21, 2022, on behalf of Pole Star, consists of a request for an Approved Jurisdictional Determination for the above project. The project area has been reviewed in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act under which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material, and any excavation activity associated with a dredge and fill project in waters of the United States. Based on a review of available documentation and an October 26, 2022, site visit, we have determined that the project site does not contain waters of the United States. A Department of the Army (DA) permit is not required for the discharge of dredged or fill material, and any excavation activity associated with a dredge and fill project into this resource under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The JD is attached to this letter. If you are not in agreement with the JD decision, you may request an administrative appeal under regulation 33 CFR 331, by using the attached Appeal Form and Administrative Appeal Process form. The request for appeal must be received within 60 days from the date of this letter. It is not necessary to submit a Request for Appeal if you do not object to the JD. This JD is valid for a period of five years from the date of this letter, unless new information warrants revisions of the JDs before the expiration date, or unless the Corps has identified, after a possible public notice and comment, that specific geographic areas with rapidly changing environmental conditions merit re-verification on a more frequent basis. 2 If there are any questions, please feel free to contact David Liccione at (720) 922- 3841 or by e-mail at David.J.Liccione@usace.army.mil and reference Corps File No. NWO-2022-01369-DEN. Sincerely, Kiel Downing Chief, Denver Regulatory Office Enclosures: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (November 1, 2022) Notice of Administrative Appeal Options