The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOLLEGE & TRILBY MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITY - PDP220009 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 4 - ECS ReportEcological Characterization Study College and Trilby Multi-Family Community (JR Engineering, LLC) City of Fort Collins Larimer County, CO Prepared For: Kenneth Merrit, APA, RLA JR Engineering, LLC. 2900 S. College Avenue, Suite 3D Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Prepared By: John Whiteman AloTerra Restoration Services 320 E. Vine Drive, Suite 314 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Report Submitted by: _____________________ ______________ John Whiteman Date Restoration Ecologist AloTerra Restoration Services 757-506-8117 jwhiteman@aloterraservices.com 04/30/2024 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... 3 PROPERTY LOCATION ...................................................................................................................................... 3 STUDY METHODS .............................................................................................................................................. 4 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Topography ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Natural Habitats and Features with Significant Ecological Value ....................................................................................................... 8 Natural Habitats and Plant Communities ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Proximity to Designated Natural Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 11 WILDLIFE (SEE APPENDIX C FOR FULL REPORT) ..................................................................................... 11 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ............................................................................................................ 11 Rare Plants ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Sensitive Species .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Other Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13 NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE (NHBZ) DESIGN AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 14 Forestry Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Noxious Weeds ............................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Enhancement ................................................................................................................................ 15 Development Activities ................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Prairie Dog Mitigation .................................................................................................................................................................. 16 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 LITERATURE CITATED .................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX A: WETLAND DELINEATION FIELD FORMS .......................................................................... 19 APPENDIX B: WETLAND DELINEATION PHOTOS ................................................................................... 20 APPENDIX C: WILDLIFE REVIEW .................................................................................................................. 26 APPENDIX D: DRAFT 30% DESIGN FOR WETLAND MITIGATION AND ............................................... 27 NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE .............................................................................................................. 27 Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 3 Introduction This report constitutes the Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) required for the proposed development of College and Trilby Multi-Family Community within the General Commercial (CG) zone district in the City of Fort Collins. This ECS report is provided in association with a conceptual design (Appendix D) for the 50’ Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) and wetland mitigation required for this development. This ECS was completed by AloTerra Restoration Services to address requirements set forth in Article 3, section 3.4.1 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Project Description The College and Trilby Multi-Family Community (the Project) includes the development of 252 dwelling units, with 38 duplex units, 202 two to three-story single-family townhomes, a dog park, and a community center (Figure 1). Most recently, this site was used to graze horses and cattle. Several species of mature trees exist on site, including both native and introduced species, that provide corridor habitat for a variety of wildlife, which will need to be included in mitigation efforts. Figure 1. Property map showing conceptual site plan developed by JR Engineering. Property Location The approximately 39.18-acre property is located within the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The northern border of the property is bordered by Skyway Drive and the Storage Star Facility, Highway 287 borders the eastern part of the property, to the south West Trilby Road, and to the west Foothills Gateway Inc. and the Skyview South subdivision (Figure 2). The southeastern corner of the property is also bordered by Ziggis Coffee and Waypoint Church. The center of the property lies approximately at 40.498552 N and -105.079374 W. Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 4 Figure 2. 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 in support of our characterization of existing ecological and wildlife conditions, as well as other natural features occurring on the site. Ecological Field Assessment: Week of April 18th, 2022; April 2, 2024 Wildlife Field Review: April 20th, 2022 Desktop analysis included reviews and interpretations of aerial imagery, assessment of regional drainage patterns, IPAC database review (USFWS), groundwater conditions, and location of nearby natural areas. Field assessments included qualitative rapid assessments of native plant communities, weed populations, wetland and riparian areas, wildlife habitat conditions, and indicators of current wildlife occupation. In addition, a formal wetland delineation was performed (Appendices A and B). The rapid assessment of vegetation was performed to compile a list of dominant and co-dominant species, and species present in each community at a lower cover. For the purposes of this study, a plant was considered dominant or co-dominant if it’s relative cover is greater than approximately 20%. Due to the timing of the vegetation survey, there may be several species present on site that, due to their phenological stage, were not readily observable at the time of this survey. However, based on general disturbed site conditions, and the presence of Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 5 above ground features of the dominant species that are present, we are confident that this survey captured the species that together represent at least 90% of the above ground biomass of the site. Results The results of the field and desktop assessments are described below, with the associated natural features represented in Figure 3. Approximately 99% of the project site is characterized as disturbed upland, with less than 1% of the site comprised of wetland and riparian communities in a degraded state or dominated by understories of exotic plants. Figure 3. Mapped natural features within Project boundary. 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). The Project site previously had forested/shrub riparian, palustrine emergent wetlands, and riverine wetland features (Figure 4); however, the previous landowner eliminated these areas from unknown land use practices. The City of Fort Collins is not requiring mitigation for the lost forested/shrub riparian and freshwater emergent wetland areas. Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 6 Figure 4. Historic wetlands from the National Wetlands Inventory within the Project boundary. Currently, the upland areas are dominated by non-native weeds and soils that have been continually disturbed (Figure 5, Table 1). The wetland and associated riparian areas are of low native species diversity, low community complexity, and low structural diversity. Several mature cottonwood trees exist on site, along with Russian olive and Siberian elm. While structural and biological diversity is low, this area is still an important corridor habitat for a variety of wildlife (Appendix C). Soils are generally loam, clay loam, and clay (Table 1). The greatest habitat features include the wetland community and mature trees that exist on site. Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 7 Figure 5. Existing soil types within the Project boundary. Table 1. Soil type descriptions (data from USGS Web Soil Survey). Soil Type Map Symbol Slope Profile Parent Material Drainage Class Depth to Water Table Hydric Soil Fort Collins Loam (1.3 ac) 35 0-3% 0-4”: Loam 4-9”: Clay loam 9-16”: Clay loam 16-29”: Loam 29-80”: Loam Pleistocene or older alluvium/eolian deposits Well drained >80” No Fort Collins Loam (0.6 ac) 36 3-5% 0-5”: Loam 5-8”: Clay loam 8-18”: Clay loam 18-24”: Loam 24-84”: Loam Pleistocene or older alluvium/eolian deposits Well drained >80” No Kim Loam (11.2 ac) 54 3-5% 0-7”: Loam 7-60”: Clay loam Mixed alluvium Well drained >80” No Kim-Thedalund Loams 56 3- 15% 0-7”: Loam 7-60”: Clay loam Mixed alluvium Well drained >80” No Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 8 Soil Type Map Symbol Slope Profile Parent Material Drainage Class Depth to Water Table Hydric Soil (19.6 ac) Longmont Clay (4.5 ac) 63 0-3% 0-60”: Clay Clayey alluvium derived from shale Poorly drained >80” No Midway Clay Loam (0.53 ac) 65 5- 25% 0-4”: Clay loam 4-19”: Clay 19-23”: Weathered bedrock Material weathered from shale Well drained >80” No Wiley Silt Loam (0.03 ac) 119 3-5% 0-6”: Silt loam 6-15”: Silt loam 15-60”: Silt loam Uniform eolian deposits Well drained >80” No Existing Infrastructure Existing infrastructure predominately includes culverts, fencing, and retention ponds outside of the property boundaries. Other existing infrastructure can be found in the JR Engineering plan set. Topography The Project site is generally flat, with a maximum slope of approximately 6%. Proposed topography would range from 4% to 10%, draining west to east. 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 wetland vegetation and mature cottonwood trees. The plant cover in the remainder of the site is dominated by non-native species with low structural and biological diversity. Natural Communities or Habitats Aquatic: no; Wetland and wet meadow: yes; Native grassland: no; Riparian forest: no; Urban plains forest: no; Riparian shrubland: no; Foothills forest: no; Foothills shrubland: no Special Features (enter yes/no, indicate on map, and describe details below): Significant remnants of native plant communities: no. Based on field conditions and analysis of aerial imagery, it is apparent no significant remnant native plant communities exist on site. Areas of significant geological or paleontological interest: not likely. A cultural and historical resources survey was not conducted as part of this assessment. However, based on the history of the site, it is unlikely the site harbors significant cultural or historical resources. Any prominent views from or across the site? no. No significant views can be seen, as much of the site is surrounded by urban developments. The pattern, species and location of any significant native trees and other native site vegetation. The only significant native vegetation occurring on the Project site includes small patches of coyote willow (Salix exigua) and baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and several mature cottonwood trees. Pattern, species, and location of any significant non-native trees. Russian olive (Eleaganus angustifolia) and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) trees can be found throughout the property. Special habitat features The special habitat features on the project site include the wetlands; however, the quality of these wetlands are of moderate to poor condition and function. Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 9 Natural Habitats and Plant Communities The subsections below outline the conditions of native habitats existing on site: wetlands, disturbed uplands, and ditch communities. Refer to Figure 3 for locations of these features. Wetland Communities AloTerra performed a formal wetland delineation on site (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region, Version 2.0, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) and a review of other aquatic features such as ponds and streams. Two wetland types were identified: palustrine scrub shrub and palustrine emergent. There were no Original High-Water Mark (OHWM) indicators within the ditch communities onsite, therefore an OHWM survey was not performed. Palustrine Scrub Shrub Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Coyote willow (Salix exigua), canary reedgrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), common mint (Mentha arvensis), teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus), milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), unknown Poa spp were dominant across this community at time of sampling. Palustrine Emergent Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Canary reedgrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) and Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) were dominant across this community at time of sampling. Disturbed Upland Plant Communities Description Upland areas within the project area are highly disturbed and predominately vegetated by non-native flora. While many species overlapped, topography of these two areas is mainly what differentiated them, as the upper disturbed community was perched above the rest of the property. Lower Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), thistle (Cirsium arvense), teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), kochia (Kochia spp.), and bindweed (Convovulus arvensis) were dominant across this community at time of sampling. Upper Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Musk thistle (Carduus nutans), Russian thistle (Salsola collina), Russian olive (Eleaganus angustifolia), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), kochia (Kochia spp.), bindweed (Convovulus arvensis), nightshade (Solanum spp.), burdock (Arctium lappa), horsetail (Conyza canadensis), rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), hoary tansy aster (Machaeranthera canescens), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), curly dock (Rumex crispus), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), knapweed (Centaurea spp.), and baltic rush (Juncus balticus) were dominant across this community at time of sampling. Ditch Communities Description There are three ditch communities on site: ash, cottonwood, and the remnant upland ditch. All three ditch communities were once connected by the irrigation ditch that ran north to south on the property (Figure 4). However, likely from the previous owner’s land use practices, the irrigation ditch has been dissected into three communities that are distinct based on canopy cover. Ash Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 10 Ash (Fraxinus spp.), curly dock (Rumex crispus), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus), unknown forbsand cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) were dominant across this community at time of sampling. Cottonwood Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), curly dock (Rumex crispus), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), unknown forbs, and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) were dominant across this community at time of sampling. Remnant Upland Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Curly dock (Rumex crispus), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), unknown forbs, and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) were dominant across this community at time of sampling. Figure 6. Mitigation areas. Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 11 Table 2. Mitigation required based on City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Mitigation Type Buffer Requirement (feet) Habitat Area (acres) Buffer Area (acres) Total Mitigation Area (acres) (columns 3 + 4) PEM Wetland 100’ 0.92 2.27 3.5 PSS Wetland 100’ 0.31 NW Corner Wetland 50’ 0.001 0.12 0.121 Ditch Habitat (Upland) 50’ 0.68 5.15 5.83 Total Mitigation Required: 9.45 acres Proximity to Designated Natural Areas The Project property is 0.41 miles east of Hazaleus Natural Area, 0.2 miles west of Prairie Dog Meadow Natural Area, and 0.28 miles south of Redtail Grove Natural Area. Wildlife (see Appendix C for full report) Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species On April 25, 2022 an official species list was documented by U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation IPAC: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ was obtained by using known ranges of federally listed species in The Project area. A list was also unofficially obtained from the 2016 Colorado Natural Heritage Program database by looking at known sightings of sensitive species near Kingfisher Wetland project area. On April 30, 2022 an AloTerra Restoration Services field technician conducted a site visit in order to assess suitable habitat for known listed and sensitive animal species. Table 3 lists provides a record of the Federally listed species that could occur within the area of the proposed project (39.1 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 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 actions within the Project. Common Name Species Status Species Excluded Reason for Exclusion Mammals Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened No No detection during survey Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Birds Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Yes Critical habitat does not overlap with project site Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with project site Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 12 Common Name Species Status Species Excluded Reason for Exclusion 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. 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. 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. Table 4. 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 Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 13 Common name Species Status Species Excluded Reasons for exclusion Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Range does not overlap with project site Swift fox Vulpes velox Forest Service Sensitive No No detection during survey Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Forest Service Sensitive No No detection during survey Cassin’s sparrow Aimophila cassinii Bird of Conservation Concern Yes Range does not overlap with project site Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Bird of Conservation Concern Yes Range does not overlap with project site Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia State threatened No No detection during survey Black Swift Cypseloides niger Forest Service Sensitive Yes Habitat requires cliffs limited in Colorado Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Site location does not overlap with species range Sandhill Crane Antigone canadensis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Forest Service Sensitive No No detection during survey Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Federal Species of Concern No No detection during survey Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Forest Service Sensitive Yes Native species range does not meet area requirements Fish Plains Minnow Hybognathus plactius State Endangered Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus latipinnis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Amphibians Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Forest Service Sensitive No No detection during survey Plains leopard frog Lithobates blairi Forest Service Sensitive Yes Range does not overlap with project site Species list was sourced from U.S. Forest Service https://www.fs.usda.gov Rocky Mountain Region and USFWS Migratory birds for the Mountain-Prairie Region updated 2017. Migratory bird list was sourced from USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php. Other Wildlife As previously discussed in the sections on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Sensitive Species of Concern, the proposed project should minimally impact populations of species that have ranges that do or may potentially overlap with the Project area. During the site visit two active raptor nests were found (Figure 7). A great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) nest was located in an old-growth cottonwood tree on the northeast corner of the property. One adult and one fledgling were seen on the nest. In the southwest corner, also in an old-growth cottonwood, an adult red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was seen brooding in the nest and a second adult was perched nearby. The nest was heavily guarded by the Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 14 adults from raiding crows. The property also has a large, active black-tailed prairie dog colony that occupies well over three quarters of the property, with 2,016 active burrows documented (Figure 7). The extent of the prairie dog colony extends to the west in the areas seen in Figure 7. There were no signs of swift fox dens nor were there any burrowing owls observed. Two killdeers (Charadrius vociferus) were seen foraging and may be nesting as well. Other common birds such as American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto), and Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya) were observed flying through the area. Figure 7. Locations of red-tailed hawk and great horned owl nests, as well as extents of black-tailed prairie dog colony. Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) Design and Recommendations AloTerra’s concept design for wetland mitigation and NHBZ (Appendix D) would result in significant ecological uplift of wetland, riparian, and upland areas, providing potential habitat for a great variety of wildlife, including those species listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this report. Forestry Mitigation A formal forestry survey was conducted on April 13, 2022 by Christine Holtz with the City of Fort Collins. Tree mitigation will include 27.5 trees (Table 5). Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 15 Table 5. Tree mitigation list documented by City of Fort Collins Forestry Department. # Species Stems DBH (inches) Condition Forestry Mitigation 1 Crabapple 9 fair minus 1.5 2 Russian olive 9 and 8 fair minus 1.5 3 Russian olive 3 7 - 8 fair 1.5 4 Siberian elm 26 fair minus 2 5 Siberian elm 6 and 9 fair minus 1.5 6 Siberian elm dead 0 7 Siberian elm dead 0 8 Siberian elm 7 dead 0 9 Cottonwood 11 and 8 poor 2 10 Ash (cloud) 50 fair 2 11 Cottonwood 29 and 19 poor 3 12 Cottonwood 18 poor 2 13 Cottonwood 36 fair minus 2.5 14 Cottonwood 30 fair minus 3 15 Cottonwood 8 14 - 26 poor 5 Total: 27.5 Noxious Weeds A preliminary weed (non-native plants) list is provided in the above site plant community sections above. Of the weeds present, those species of greatest management concern include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus), (and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae). These species are difficult to eradicate without intensive chemical treatment methods due to their perennial growth habits. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Enhancement Wetland mitigation and NHBZ designs will include native seed mixes with wetland, riparian, and upland mixes (see Appendix D for preliminary plant lists). All seed mixes will combine grass, grass-like species, and flowering forbs to attract pollinators. Species lists are designed to fill all ecological niches so that there is minimal chance of noxious weed intrusion. This also allows for restoration of soil through different rooting patterns and zones. Native container plants throughout the wetland mitigation and NHBZ areas are also recommended to increase the amount of diversity within the Project area. Examples include bulrushes and sedges for the wetland and riparian areas, and fruiting shrubs and small trees for the upland areas. To build upon the sustainability goals of AloTerra, the City of Fort Collins, and College and Trilby, we encourage using as many on-site materials as possible, to minimize the fuel consumption, carbon emissions, and other impacts associated with materials import. This includes, but not limited to, using existing downed trees as features throughout the NHBZ, which can provide diverse habitat for wildlife throughout the corridor, and act as natural benches for visitors. Excavated soil in the wetland mitigation and NHBZ areas can be used as on-site fill for development purposes, to reduce the need to import fill to the site. Formal wetland delineation forms (Appendix A) and an Approved Jurisdictional Determination have been submitted to USACE, with the understanding that because of the isolated nature of the two wetlands onsite, they will not be Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 16 considered Water’s of the US (WOTUS) and will not require any further permitting or mitigation under USACE. However, wetland mitigation will be required by the City of Fort Collins. AloTerra proposes a wetland design that increases diversity and ecological function. This would be achieved by excavating and grading the wetland to attain a greater variety of hydrologic conditions. Topography should be designed to support emergent, mesic meadow, and facultative wetland species, which will transition to riparian habitats where willows and mesoriparian/xeroriparian shrubs can be planted (Figure 8). Figure 8. Example wetland cross section. Development Activities The project is currently in the Preliminary Development Plan phase. Construction should avoid impacting important suitable habitat for sensitive or endangered species. In order to minimally impact sensitive or migratory bird populations, it is important to avoid impacting any potential nesting sites (cottonwood trees or thick vegetation on the surface). During construction, Colorado Park and Wildlife Regulations pertaining to red-tailed hawks should be followed. Prairie Dog Mitigation As directed by the City of Fort Collins, the black-tailed prairie dog population will need to be mitigated before construction begins. Follow up surveys must take place to ensure proper mitigation. A plan must be created and implemented adhering to one of the following options included in the Land Use Code Requirements (Land Use Code Section 3.4.1). Since this site is greater than one acre, and development activities require the removal of prairie dogs, mitigation must occur due to lost ecological value. Options can be viewed on the Flow Chart following Land Use Code Requirements. Mitigation might consist of several methods. Geographic location and “Areas of Concern” (Off-site continuation of prairie dog colony) can be viewed on Figure 7. Due to development activities and the establishment of the NHBZ on the western border, all areas of concern must be mitigated to ensure the NHBZ is not impacted by future prairie dog “re-intrusion”. A payment in lieu can be made to the City of Fort Collins to mitigate for prairie dogs by 1) Trap, Euthanize, and Donate; 2) Live Relocation; or 3) Fumigation-Carbon Monoxide. Pricing will be negotiated with the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas, depending on contractor and site-specific conditions. Recommended by the City of Fort Collins is Active Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 17 Relocation, followed by Trap, Euthanize, and Donate; so that other species recovery programs can benefit. Ethically euthanized black-tailed prairie dogs may be donated to the Rocky Mountain Raptor Center or The National Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center (NBFFCC), but strict guidelines must be followed. Detailed information on the Raptor Center can be obtained by contacting the Rocky Mountain Raptor Center at 970-484-7756 or info@rmrp.org. Information on the NBFFCC can be found by contacting one of the following personnel: Tyler Tretten 970-897-2730 x62221 tyler_tretten@fws.gov NBFFCC Fish & Wildlife Biologist Dr. Della Garelle, DVM 970-897-2730 x62223 della_garelle@fws.gov NBFFCC Veterinarian Justin Chuven 970-897-2730 x62230 justin_chuven@fws.gov NBFFCC Deputy Recovery Coordinator Robyn Bortner 970-897-2730 x62226 robyn_bortner@fws.gov NBFFCC Fish & Wildlife Biologist Issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological character of the area. Because there are active raptor nests within the Project boundary, CPW regulations for red-tailed hawks must be followed during construction. A 450’ buffer around the nesting site must be shown on design plans with a note that no construction within the buffer may occur within the first year of development. Measures needed to mitigate projected adverse impacts of development on natural habitats and features. During construction there should be setbacks, silt fence, and erosion control to help mitigate any adverse impacts to existing wetland and riparian features that will remain on site. Summary In summary, while the overall quality and diversity of this site is low, it still provides important corridor habitat to wildlife, which should be maintained. However, we believe that the proposed development would have minimal impact to sensitive or rare wildlife or plants, natural features, and other important ecological functions and conservation elements in the region. Additionally, the proposed wetland mitigation and NHBZ would create overall ecological uplift of the site and enhance the quality of plant communities and connectivity of habitat for wildlife by establishing multiple plant community types with varying structural and functional diversity. 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 Ecological Characterization Study, College and Trilby Page 18 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.fw18reblepreble/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 (May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0) Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022 Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP3 Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range: Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Y Is the sampled area within a wetland: Y Hydric Soil Present: Y Wetland Hydrology Present: Y Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287. VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet % Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species 1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. 3. Total no. of dominant 4. species across all strata: 1 (B) 5. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. Salix exigua 7 No OBL Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL spp: xx x1 = 4. FACW spp: 100 x2 =200 5. FAC spp: xx x3 = 7 = % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 = UPL spp: xx x5 = Column totals: (A)100 (B)200 Prevalence Index (B/A) = 2 Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: % Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 1. Phalari 100 Yes FACW _X__ 2. Dominance test is > 50% 2. _X__ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 3. ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide 4. Supporting data in remarks or attach) 5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 7. (explain) 8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic 10. 11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes 100= % Total Herb Cover Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. = % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 95 REMARKS: SOILS Profile Description (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6.5 10YR2/1 99 7YR4/6 1 C M Silty Clay 6.5-16 10YR4/2 25 10YR5/6 5 C M Silty clay 10YR3/1 70 1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils __ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10) __ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain) __ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3) __ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and __ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless __ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Salt deposits throughout soil stratum. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) __ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) __ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) _X_ Drainage patterns (B10) __ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2) __ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) __ Drift deposits (B3) __ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) _X_ Geomorphic position (D2) __ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3) __ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5) __ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA) _X_ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7) __ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Surface water present: N Depth (inches): Water table present: N Depth (inches): Saturation present: N Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: FORM NOTES Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3. Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height. FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology determinations. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0) Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022 Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP4 Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range: Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: N Is the sampled area within a wetland: N Hydric Soil Present: Y Wetland Hydrology Present: Y Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287. VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet % Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species 1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total no. of dominant 4. species across all strata: (B) 5. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL spp: xx x1 = 4. FACW spp: 100 x2 =200 5. FAC spp: xx x3 = = % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 = UPL spp: xx x5 = Column totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index (B/A) = Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: % Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 1. Bromus inermis 75 Yes UPL ___ 2. Dominance test is > 50% 2. Pascopyrum smithii 25 Yes UPL ___ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 3. ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide 4. Supporting data in remarks or attach) 5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 7. (explain) 8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic 10. 11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: No 100= % Total Herb Cover Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. = % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 95 REMARKS: SOILS Profile Description (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10Y3/1 100 Silty Clay 4-6.5 10YR3/1 75 7.5YR4/6 1 C M Silty clay 10YR4/2 29 6.5-19 10YR3/1 15 7.5YR4/6 6 C M Clay 10YR4/3 80 1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils __ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10) __ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain) __ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3) __ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and __ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless __ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Salt deposits throughout soil stratum. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) __ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) __ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) _X_ Drainage patterns (B10) __ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2) __ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) __ Drift deposits (B3) _X_ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) _X_ Geomorphic position (D2) __ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3) __ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5) __ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA) __ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7) __ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Surface water present: N Depth (inches): Water table present: N Depth (inches): Saturation present: N Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: FORM NOTES Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3. Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height. FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology determinations. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0) Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022 Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP5 Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range: Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Y Is the sampled area within a wetland: Y Hydric Soil Present: Y Wetland Hydrology Present: Y Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287. VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet % Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species 1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1(A) 2. 3. Total no. of dominant 4. species across all strata: 1 (B) 5. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL spp: xx x1 = 4. FACW spp: 99 x2 =198 5. FAC spp: xx x3 = = % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 = UPL spp: xx x5 = Column totals: (A) 99 (B) 198 Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1 Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: % Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 1. Phalaris arundinacea 99 Yes FACW _X__ 2. Dominance test is > 50% 2. Rumex crispus 5 No UPL _X__ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 3. Taraxacum officinale <1 No UPL ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide 4. Supporting data in remarks or attach) 5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 7. (explain) 8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic 10. 11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes 100= % Total Herb Cover Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. = % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: <1% % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 95 REMARKS: SOILS Profile Description (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR2/1 100 Silty clay loam 5-16 10YR3/2 25 7.5YR5/8 1 C M Silty clay 10YR4/2 75 2.5YR4/8 1 C PL 1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils __ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10) __ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain) __ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3) __ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and __ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless __ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Salt deposits throughout soil stratum. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) __ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) __ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) _X_ Drainage patterns (B10) __ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2) __ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) __ Drift deposits (B3) _X_ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) _X_ Geomorphic position (D2) __ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3) __ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5) __ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA) __ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7) __ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Surface water present: N Depth (inches): Water table present: N Depth (inches): Saturation present: N Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: FORM NOTES Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3. Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height. FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology determinations. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0) Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022 Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP6 Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range: Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: N Is the sampled area within a wetland: N Hydric Soil Present: Y Wetland Hydrology Present: N Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287. VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet % Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species 1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total no. of dominant 4. species across all strata: (B) 5. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL spp: xx x1 = 4. FACW spp: x2 = 5. FAC spp: xx x3 = = % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 = UPL spp: xx x5 = Column totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1 Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: % Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 1. Bromus inermis 99 Yes UPL ___ 2. Dominance test is > 50% 2. Dipsacus laciniatus 1 No UPL ___ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 3. ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide 4. Supporting data in remarks or attach) 5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 7. (explain) 8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic 10. 11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: No 100= % Total Herb Cover Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. = % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: <1% % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 95 REMARKS: SOILS Profile Description (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 10YR3/2 100 Silty clay loam 7-16 10YR4/4 95 7.5YR4/6 1 C M Silty clay 10YR3/1 5 1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils __ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10) __ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain) __ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3) __ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and __ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless __ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Salt deposits throughout soil stratum. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) __ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) __ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) __ Drainage patterns (B10) __ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2) __ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) __ Drift deposits (B3) __ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) _X_ Geomorphic position (D2) __ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3) __ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5) __ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA) __ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7) __ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? No Surface water present: N Depth (inches): Water table present: N Depth (inches): Saturation present: N Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: FORM NOTES Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3. Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height. FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology determinations. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0) Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022 Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP7 Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range: Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Concave Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: PSS Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Y Is the sampled area within a wetland: Y Hydric Soil Present: Y Wetland Hydrology Present: Y Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287. VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet % Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species 1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 1 2. 3. Total no. of dominant 4. species across all strata: (B)1 5. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) 100 Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. Salix exigua 30 Yes OBL Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL spp: 30 x1 = 30 4. FACW spp: x2 = 5. FAC spp: xx x3 = 30 = % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 = UPL spp: xx x5 = Column totals: (A) 30 (B) 30 Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1 Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: % Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 1. Mentha arvensis 1 No FACW _X__ 2. Dominance test is > 50% 2. Poa spp. 1 No N/A __X_ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 3. Asclepias speciosa 1 No FAC ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide 4. Dipsacus laciniatus 1 No UPL Supporting data in remarks or attach) 5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 7. (explain) 8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic 10. 11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes 4= % Total Herb Cover Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. = % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: <1% % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 90 REMARKS: Houndstongue in willow carr. SOILS Profile Description (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-7 10YR2/2 100 silty clay loam 7-18 10YR4/3 90 7.5YR4/6 1 C M silty clay 10YR3/1 10 1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils __ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10) __ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain) __ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3) __ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and __ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless __ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Salt deposits throughout soil stratum. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) __ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) __ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) _X_ Drainage patterns (B10) __ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2) __ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) __ Drift deposits (B3) __ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) _X_ Geomorphic position (D2) __ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3) __ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5) __ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA) __ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7) __ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Surface water present: N Depth (inches): Water table present: N Depth (inches): Saturation present: N Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: FORM NOTES Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3. Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height. FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology determinations. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (May 2010 Regional Supplement to 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coastal Regions, Version 2.0) Project/Site: Core Spaces City/County: Fort Collins/Larimer Sampling Date: 04/15/2022 Applicant/Owner: AloTerra/Private Land Owner State: CO Sampling Point: SP8 Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Section/Township/Range: Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): Local Relief: Slope (%): 1% Subregion (LRR): Lat: Lon: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation Yes ; Soil, No; or Hydrology No; significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes Are Vegetation No; Soil, No; or Hydrology No: naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: N Is the sampled area within a wetland: N Hydric Soil Present: Y Wetland Hydrology Present: N Remarks: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Landscape is a bowl like shape where uplands to the north, south, and west drain to. Culvert at the eastern side of wetland that drains under HWY 287. VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 25 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet % Cover Species? Status Number of dominant species 1. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3. Total no. of dominant 4. species across all strata: (B) 5. = Total Cover Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 9 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. 30 Yes OBL Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL spp: x1 = 4. FACW spp: x2 = 5. FAC spp: xx x3 = 30 = % Total Shrub Cover FACU spp: xx x4 = UPL spp: xx x5 = Column totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index (B/A) = Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1.0 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: % Cover Species? Status ____ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 1. Bromus inermis 95 Yes UPL ___ 2. Dominance test is > 50 2. Juncus balticus 5 No FAC ___ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 3. ____ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide 4. Supporting data in remarks or attach) 5. ____ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 6. ____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 7. (explain) 8. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 9. be present, unless disturbed or problematic 10. 11. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes 100= % Total Herb Cover Woody Vine Strat. (Plot Size: 9 sq.m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. = % Total Absolute Woody Vine Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: <1% % Litter Cover in Herb Stratum: 90 REMARKS: SOILS Profile Description (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-16 10YR4/2 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C M silty clay loam 1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils __ Histosol (A1) __ Sandy redox (S5) __ 2cm muck (A10) __ Histic epipedon (A2) __ Stripped matrix (S6) __ Red parent material (TF2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy mucky mineral (F1, except MLRA 1) __ Very shallow dark surface (TF12) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) __ Other (explain) __ Depleted below dark surface (A11) __ Depleted matrix (F3) __ Thick dark surface (A12) __ Redox dark surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and __ Sandy mucky mineral (S1) N/A __ Depleted dark surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, unless __ Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) _X Redox depressions (F8) disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if present) Hydric Soil Present? Yes Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Salt deposits throughout soil stratum. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) __ Surface water (A1) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ Water stained leaves (B9) __ High water table (A2) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) __ Saturation (A3) __ Salt crust (B11) __ Drainage patterns (B10) __ Water marks (B1) __ Aquatic invertebrates (B13) __ Dry season water table (C2) __ Sediment deposits (B2) __ Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) __ Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) __ Drift deposits (B3) __ Oxidized rhizospheres along roots (C3) __ Geomorphic position (D2) __ Algal mat or crust (B4) __ Presence of reduced iron (C4) __ Shallow aquitard (D3) __ Iron deposits (B5) __ Recent iron reduction in tilled soils (C6) __ FAC-neutral test (D5) __ Surface soil cracks (B6) __ Stunted or stressed plants (D1) (LRRA) __ Raised ant mounds (D6) (except LRRA) __ Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) __ Other (explain in remarks) __ Frost-heave hummocks (D7) __ Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? No Surface water present: N Depth (inches): Water table present: N Depth (inches): Saturation present: N Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: FORM NOTES Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3. Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height. FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology determinations. Appendix B: Wetland Delineation Photos Figure 1. PEM wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling. Figure 2. PEM wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling. Figure 3. PEM wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling. Figure 4. PEM wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling. Figure 5. PSS wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling. Figure 6. PSS wetland delineation vegetation (left) and soils (right) sampling. Appendix C: Wildlife Review 1 | P a g e Core Spaces (hereafter referred to as the Project) site is located in Fort Collins, Colorado in Larimer County (Figure 1). The property is bordered by Highway 287 on the east, Skyway Dr to the north, Trilby Rd to the south and Constellation Dr residential housing to the west. Although not connected, The Prairie Dog Meadow Natural Area lies less than half a mile to the east of the Project. Currently The Project is used for agricultural purposes and is proposed to undergo housing development. The project area is dominated by uplands. Within the Project contains several old growth cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides) on the north and south borders. Herbaceous plants across the site were dominated by non-native species, such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Riparian areas were dominated by canary reedgrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) and coyote willow (Salix exigua). Figure 1. Location of Core Spaces in Fort Collins, Colorado. 2 | P a g e The purpose of this wildlife review is to assess the probable effects on federally listed species and sensitive species in the proposed Project site, per Section 7 of the 1973 Endangered Species Act. Under the actions, consultations, and recommendations of the USFWS, in cooperation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The authorized organization must ensure, with the best scientific data available, that there will be no negative change or destruction to critical habitats in the Project area (USFWS, 2013). On April 25, 2022 an official species list was documented by U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation IPAC: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ was obtained by using known ranges of federally listed species in The Project area. A list was also unofficially obtained from the 2016 Colorado Natural Heritage Program database by looking at known sightings of sensitive species near Kingfisher Wetland project area. On April 30, 2022 an AloTerra Restoration Services field technician conducted a site visit in order to assess suitable habitat for known listed and sensitive animal species. Table 1 lists provides a record of the federally listed Federally listed species that could occur within the area of the proposed project (38 acres). The table includes (a) the common name of the species (b) the scientific name of the species (c) the status of the species in question (d) whether or not the species should be excluded and (e) the reasoning why the species should be excluded. The reasoning of excluding species from the list of concerned species is given based off a variety of reasons including: 1) No suitable habitat was found during site visit, The range of the species in is such that the species is highly unlikely to not known near occur within the Project site; 2) No suitable habitat was found during the site review; and/or 3) No records for the species exist within the Project site. Table 1. Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species that may occur or be affected by actions within the Project. Common Name Species Status Species Excluded Reason for Exclusion Mammals Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened No No detection during survey Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Birds Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Yes Critical habitat does not overlap with project site Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with project site Least tern Sterna antillarum Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with project site Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Yes Range does not overlap with project site Fish Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Yes Species and habitat are not present. Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. 3 | P a g e Common Name Species Status Species Excluded Reason for Exclusion Plants Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Ute ladies-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Western prairie fringed orchid Plantanthera praeclara Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula Endangered Yes Found in higher elevation range (8,000-8,300 ft) Sourced from IPAC :http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ website. Note- Some species may be affected downstream from water source. *There are no federally designated critical habitats within the Project area. Since 1998, the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) has been federally listed as threatened by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. In Colorado, they are also listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Needs, considered sensitive by the US Forest Service, and critically imperiled according to the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Declining PMJM populations are due to predation, habitat degradation, and fragmentation. In Colorado, the PMJM can be found up to elevations around 7,000 feet east of the Front Range, and west to the shortgrass prairie. (USFWS, 2013) Preble’s meadow jumping mice are found in areas with natural hydrological processes that create a dense riparian area with biologically diverse herbaceous plants. PMJM have been found in environments with a variety of plant species, frequently in areas with a thick layer of grasses and forbs that create cover. Studies show that the specific species composition of herbaceous plants is not as important to supporting populations, but that suitable habitat needs to have a higher percentage of ground cover in the vicinity to open water. Most PMJM were found within areas with a higher density of the shrub layer consisting mostly of willows. The mice use adjacent grassy uplands as far as approximately 300 feet from the 100-year floodplain to “hibernate” during the colder months. These nests are called hibernacula and can be found under the cover of snowberry, chokecherry, cottonwoods, gooseberry, and other willow species. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (1973) prevents any funded or authorized agency to take action that would negatively affect lands labeled as PMJM Critical habitat. Critical Habitat is defined by areas currently occupied by the species or potential areas in which the species could establish. In 2013, The Fish and Wildlife Service revised the critical habitat designation for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (shapefiles found at: https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/es/species/mammals/preble/CRITICAL%20HABITAT/CRITICALHABITATindex.htm.). The approximate 50,000 acres designated for critical habitat occur adjacent to streams and rivers in the Colorado foothill and mountain regions. PMJM critical habitat is located in Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer and Teller Counties (USFWS, 2014). Currently there is no critical habitat designated in the Project area (USFWS, 2010). Although the Project area does not have optimal habitat due to lack of desired upland vegetation, presence of PMJM cannot be confirmed without a thorough survey of the area. The rare plant survey resulted in no evidence of Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies’-tresses) or Gaura neomexicana var. coloradenesis (Colorado Butterfly Plant) in the Project area. 4 | P a g e The sensitive species list is derived from the U.S. Forest Service (https://www.fs.usda.gov) and Colorado Parks and Wildlife data on present sensitive species ranges and distributions (USFS, 2005). The Regional Forester’s sensitive list is evaluated by examining viable risk of species; these species are categorized as R2 sensitive, not R2 sensitive, or, not a concern. Suitable habitat was also determined by a site visit conducted by AloTerra Restoration Services on November 01, 2021. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act no activity that “takes, transports, barters, or exports the listed migratory birds or eagles is permissible unless it is sanctioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The sensitive species list includes migratory birds that could use The Project area as a breeding, over-wintering, or stopover site. The species found in Table 2 below are compiled from lists of at-risk species that have potential habitat or occurrence in the Project area, specifically in the vicinity of the documented wetland. The table is organized as followed: (a) The common name of the species, (b) The scientific name of the species, (c) The status of the species in question, (d) Whether or not the species should be excluded, and (e) The reasons why the species should be excluded. Table 2. Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species that may occur or be affected by the actions within the Project. Common name Species Status Species Excluded Reasons for exclusion Mammals Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Forest Service Sensitive Yes Found in coniferous forest and mixed pine Townsend’s big- eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Forest Service Sensitive Yes Habitat requirements are not in range Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in the Project site White-tailed prairie dog (Ocynomys leucurus) Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in the Project site Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Range does not overlap with project site Swift fox Vulpes velox Forest Service Sensitive No No detection during survey Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Forest Service Sensitive No No detection during survey Cassin’s sparrow Aimophila cassinii Bird of Conservation Concern Yes Range does not overlap with project site Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Bird of Conservation Concern Yes Range does not overlap with project site Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia State threatened No Black Swift Cypseloides niger Forest Service Sensitive Yes Habitat requires cliffs limited in Colorado Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Site location does not overlap with species range Sandhill Crane Antigone canadensis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site 5 | P a g e Common name Species Status Species Excluded Reasons for exclusion Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Forest Service Sensitive No No detection during survey Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Federal Species of Concern No No detection during survey Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Forest Service Sensitive Yes Native species range does not meet area requirements Fish Plains Minnow Hybognathus plactius State Endangered Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus latipinnis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Amphibians Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Forest Service Sensitive No No detection during survey Plains leopard frog Lithobates blairi Forest Service Sensitive Yes Range does not overlap with project site Species list was sourced from U.S. Forest Service https://www.fs.usda.gov Rocky Mountain Region and USFWS Migratory birds for the Mountain-Prairie Region updated 2017. Migratory bird list was sourced from USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php. Historically Swift fox (Vulpes velox) populations declined due to habitat fragmentation and loss, competition, trapping, and collateral damage when trying to kill wolves. In Colorado they are listed as Special Concern and classified as a sensitive species by USFS Region 2. They range throughout western United States but are found in higher abundances in Colorado than Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota, where they still have not reached historical population levels. The fox appears to not be affected by heavily grazed ecosystems and can be found in a variety of habitat types that include short-grass and mid-grass prairies, including a variety of agricultural land types. In these areas, vegetation is typically dominated by blue grama, buffalograss, western wheatgrass, and sagebrush. Fox dens have been found in areas with low vegetation on slight slopes in well-drained sites, with soil types that include silty loam or loam. The species are not directly reliant on riparian areas and can be found up to 3 miles away from any source of water. (Marks et al., 2005). No dens were sighted in the Project area. Due to the size of the proposed Project area, there should be minimal impacts to swift fox populations. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is found only in North America (CPW, n.d.). Populations declined in the early-mid 20th century due to impacts from pesticides (mainly DDT), disturbance and loss of trees for nesting habitat. The eagle was consequently placed on the Endangered Species List. However, with the ban on the pesticide DDT and protection of nesting habitat, the eagles have substantially recovered, with Endangered status reduced to Threatened in 1995 and with further recovery was de-listed nationally. The bald eagle was removed from the Colorado list of threatened and endangered species in 2009. Bald eagles can be found 6 | P a g e throughout much of Colorado during both summer and winter and can be observed near reservoirs and major rivers such as the South Platte. Eagles will roost and nest in large cottonwood trees, roosting communally in the winter for warmth. Bald eagles have a varied diet, with nests often found near water in tall trees, building nests that can be 7 to 8 feet across. No nests or signs of bald eagles were seen during site visit on November 01, 2021. Any bald eagles that may be using the area should not be negatively affected by the Project, especially if large trees can be protected from construction activities. The Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is considered locally uncommon to fairly common on the Colorado eastern plains and rare to uncommon in mountain parks and on the western slope (Andrews and Righter 1992). These small raptors are distinguished by their long legs, round head and have no ear tufts. They feed on insects, small mammals and reptiles, foraging in grasslands and pastures and other agricultural lands. Although they can excavate nesting holes in sandy soil they prefer to use empty burrows made by other animals, primarily rodents. These ground nesters are often seen in and closely tied to prairie dog towns. Burrowing owl populations have drastically declined due to habitat lost to agriculture and development. During the site visit a large active prairie dog colony was found, but no burrowing owls were observed. The Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) is a Tier 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Colorado and a Forest Service Sensitive Species in Region 2. These raptors reside in a variety of habitats year-around, including grasslands and marshes. They reside throughout Colorado, with higher densities on the eastern plains, short- grass prairies and western valleys. In the eastern plains these birds breed in a variety of ecosystems, preferring large wetlands (>250 acres) with dense vegetation (7-10 inches in height). Nests are found either on the ground or on a platform usually near open water. More specifically, nests are commonly found hidden in wetland vegetation, where cover is taller than 60 cm. (Slater, 2005) During the site visit on November 01, 2021 no northern harrier was sighted, and no nests were found. The Project development is unlikely to negatively impact the species due to the species range and scope of the Project. The Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is found throughout Colorado in open areas, usually native short and tall grass prairies, and agricultural lands. Since the 1980s, Swainson Hawk populations declined in many parts of its range due to removal of riparian habitat, and lack of nest site availability (Bechard, 2010). The raptors’ home range varies between about 170 to 21,550 acres depending on the amount of forage and water available. Nests will frequently be found in a lone tree or post in these grasslands, but they can also be found along riparian areas among a cluster of trees within their home range. The nests are found in a variety tree species including cottonwood (Populus sp.), willows (Salix sp.), sycamores (Platanus sp.), and walnut (Juglans sp.) These hawks are a migratory bird species, listed on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, traveling from North America to breed in the summer to South America for wintering. (Woodbridge, 1998) This raptor has a high tolerance for human disturbance and can be found in areas with high human activity, although there can be nest abandonment if there is high-intensity disturbance or construction near a nesting tree. When nests occur, they are usually found 15-30 feet above ground. AloTerra Restoration Service’s wildlife technician conducted a field assessment on November 01, 2021 and found no nests in the proposed construction area. The Swainson’s Hawk should not be negatively affected by the Project due to the extensive size of their home range and minimal effect to potential nesting sites from construction activities. Northern leopard frogs (Lithobates blairi) are found statewide in Colorado and are currently listed as a Tier 1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Population declines are due to climate change, invasive diseases, habitat 7 | P a g e loss, pollution, and predation. The frogs can be found in the western United States in elevations up to 11,000 feet. This species can inhabit a variety of riparian areas including stream channels, sloughs, reservoirs, gravel pits, and oxbows. For breeding and foraging purposes, the frogs prefer dense vegetation with heights around 6 to 12 inches and more than 30 percent cover. Northern leopard frog breeding sites commonly occur in semi- permanent ponds or wetlands with water depths to 25 to 40 inches. Water quality is an important factor for most amphibians, needing unpolluted sites with water that is well oxygenated and pH balanced (6.1-7) (CPW, 2005). Through the winter, leopard frogs hibernate on the bottom of ponds located beneath 1-1.5 feet of rock where water depths were at least 2 feet. Construction associated with The Project may impact individuals that were not identified during the general survey, but due to the size and location of the construction project it is not likely to result in a decline in population toward federal listing. As previously discussed in the sections on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Sensitive Species of Concern, the proposed project should minimally impact populations of species that have ranges that do or may potentially overlap with the Project area. During the site visit two active raptor nests were found (Figure 6). A great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) nest was located in an old-growth cottonwood tree on the northeast corner of the property. One adult and one fledgling were seen on the nest. In the southwest corner, also in an old-growth cottonwood, an adult red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) was seen brooding in the nest and a second adult was perched nearby. The nest was heavily guarded by the adults from raiding crows. The property also has a large, active black-tailed prairie dog colony that occupies well over three quarters of the property, with 2,016 active burrows documented (Figure 6). There were no signs of swift fox dens nor were there any burrowing owls observed. Two killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) were seen foraging and may be nesting as well. Other common birds such as American robin (Turdus migratorius), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto), and Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya) were observed flying through the area. 8 | P a g e Figure 2. Locations of red-tailed hawk and great horned owl nests, as well as extents of black-tailed prairie dog colony. Construction should avoid impacting important suitable habitat for sensitive or endangered species. In order to minimally impact sensitive or migratory bird populations, it is important to avoid impacting any potential nesting sites (cottonwood trees or thick vegetation on the surface). During construction, Colorado Park and Wildlife Regulations pertaining to red-tailed hawks should be followed. As directed by the City of Fort Collins, the black- tailed prairie dog population will need to be euthanized before construction begins, and a pre-construction survey will need to be conducted to determine if the population has been eradicated. Ethically euthanized black- tailed prairie dogs may be donated to the Rocky Mountain Raptor Center, but strict guidelines must be followed. Detailed information can be obtained by contacting the Rocky Mountain Raptor Center at 970-484-7756 or info@rmrp.org. 9 | P a g e Andrews, J.N. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver, Colorado. 442pp. Bechard, M.J., Houston, C.S., Sarasola, J.H., and England, A.S., (2010). Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), In: The Birds of North America (Rodewald, P. G., [Ed.]), Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species- Account/bna/species/swahaw. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (2005). Leopard Frogs: Assessing Habitat Quality for Wildlife Species in Colorado Wetlands. Retrieved from https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/PrioritySpecies/Factsheet-and-Habitat- Scorecard_LeopardFrogs.pdf. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (n.d.) Species Profiles. Retrieved from http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx Marks, R., Paul, R., Rewa, C., and Peak, M., (2005). Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) Wildlife Habitat Council and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Grasslands/SwiftFox.pdf Swenson, J. E., K. L. Alt, and R. L. Eng. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildl. Monogr. 95: 1 -46. Slater, G.L. and Rock, C., (2005). Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182007.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Critical Habitat: Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. USFWS Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species Program. http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/preble/CRITICAL_HABITAT/CRITIALHABITATindex.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. 4310-55-S U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions and Recommended Conservation Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), the Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis), and the Colorado butterfly plant (Guara neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) from Emergency Flood Response Activities Along Streams, Rivers, or Transportation Corridors in Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Ecological Services Field Office. September 24, 2013. 10 | P a g e U.S. Forest Service (USFS), (2015). Sensitive Species List: Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5390116 Woodbridge, B., (1998). Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In: The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian-associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Retrieved from http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html Appendix D: Draft 30% Design for Wetland Mitigation and Natural Habitat Buffer Zone DATE: Re v e g e t a t i o n N o t e s SHEET NO.: PR E P A R E D F O R : PR E P A R E D B Y : EPSG: 2231 NAD83 Colorado North REVEGETATION, SOILS, AND BIOENGINEERING NOTES 1.Cont ai ner s (shr ubs a nd t r ees) shal l be protected from beaver and other wildlife using the "plant protection" detail in plan set, where located above the bankfull elevation. Containers (shrubs) located below bankfull shall be protected from potential foot traffic with two wood stakes such that the above ground portion of the stake is at least as high as the canopy of the shrub container plant. Containers (herbaceous) shall not be fenced or staked. 2. All soil applied to the site must be free of Colorado state noxious and Colorado A and B listed weed propagules, and shall not contain more than 0.01% by dry weight of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), or Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis). Project engineer or their representative shall approve all imported soil and fill for weed content before material is purchased. 3. A soil test shall be required for any import soils that may be required. The following soil chemistry characteristics must not be exceeded in soils that both receive seed or plant materials and have either been amended or installed between or over riprap: a. Soil pH shall be between 5.8 and 7.8. b.Soil electrical conductivity (using ECe method) shall be less than 2.0 dS/m (less than 2.0 mS/cm, less than 2,000 uS/cm, less than 2.0 mmho/cm). Imported compost shall not exceed 4.0 dS/m, regardless of the ratio at which it is incorporated into the topsoil or subsoil. c. Sodium absorption ratio of soils or imported compost shall be less than 3. d. Soil organic matter shall be between 10% and 20% by dry weight. The desired portion of recalcitrant organic matter, as a percentage of total organic matter, is between 10% and 40% by dry weight. e.In general, nitrogen supplementing is not recommended for native plant restoration, except in very small quantities when a deficiency in native or imported topsoil is noted. Based on the soil test, nitrogen additions may be required by the project engineer. f. In seeded areas, if imported topsoil is deficient in nitrogen and low in organic matter, soil amendments used shall include biosol (300-400 lbs/acre) and humate (300-500 lbs/acre) or similar. Compost may also be mixed with native soil to meet organic content requirements, only if the resultant topsoil meets the above soil chemistry criteria. 4. All seed must be inspected by the contractor prior to installation, and all tags must be maintained for documentation. All seed must be labeled as "certified" by the Colorado seed growers association and shall not include the presence of noxious or invasive species prohibited under the Colorado seed act. Seed must be free of Colorado state noxious and Colorado A and B listed weed propagules shall not contain more than 0.01% by dry weight of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), or Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis). Project engineer or their representative shall approve all seed mixes for weed content and substitutions before seed is purchased. Seed identification and certification tags shall be provided to the project manager for review and approval prior to use. 5. A restoration ecologist should be consulted when reviewing weed-free seed, soil, mulch, and soil amendment products, including the list of potential weeds present in the product in question. 6. Seeding shall be broadcast at rates listed in seed mix, raked into the soil surface to a depth of between 0.25 and 0.5 inches deep, and covered with mulch at a rate that attains 70% soil coverage and is no deeper than 1". 7.THE SEED MIXES SHALL BE APPLIED TO AREAS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SET. 8. Mulch shall be aesthetically pleasing, and be able to withstand windspeeds up to 60 mph and remain in place. 9. Wood straw or wood shred shall be used for surface mulch on seeded and planted areas. If wood shred is used, it shall contain a diversity of wood fiber lengths, with less than 10% fines (i.e., less than 2" in length). If approved by the project manager, alternative weed-free and wind resistant mulch may be used. 10.The placement of surface mulch over seeded areas shall occur a maximum of 96 hours after seeding. Each shrub or tree planting shall be treated with mulch according to typical details. Mulch shall be kept 1-2 inches away from stems of shrubs and trees. Herbaceous plants shall not be mulched, except where indicated in the plan set. 11.Certified weed-free mulch shall be used in all situations. Proper labeling for each bale or lot of mulch used is required. Project manager has the right to inspect and reject bales if they are suspected to contain unacceptable weed contents. Specifically, smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis), fireweed (Kochia scoparia), and other aggressive exotic plant species shall not be present in mulches used for the project. A restoration ecologist or botanist should be consulted when reviewing the weed-free mulch product. A list of potential weeds present in the mulch and the product information shall be provided to the project manager and project designer for review and approval prior to use. Hay, regardless of the source, shall not be used as a mulch. 12.Containers (herbaceous and woody) shall be planted as specified in the “plant palette" and "planting schedule" tables, and "revegetation construction details" of this plan set. 13. Each plant container must contain a label identifying the species in the container. Labels shall be left with the plant and be available for inspection by the project manager and project designer prior to installation, and must be kept in the ground following transplanting, for follow-up identification. 14. Ecotypic (i.e., sourced from genetically local populations) plant materials are required when available. Refer to the plant materials yellow pages (www.southernrockiesseed.org) for a list of vendors who carry ecotypic plant materials in Colorado. When ecotypes are not available, site adapted cultivars may be approved by the project manager if they are suited to the unique conditions of the site. For the purposes of this project, ecotypes are those plant materials (cuttings, seeds, or berries) whose origin meets the following criteria. Genetically unmodified native plant material that is sourced not more than 1,000 feet higher or lower (and preferentially not more than 500 feet higher or lower) in elevation than the work site, and not more than 100 miles north or south of the work site. 15. Shrubs and trees planted as container stock or bare-root stock shall be surrounded by a planting depression, including an irrigation berm, of 2" deep at the center of the depression, and 18” in diameter from berm to berm. 16. Due to the poor condition of substrate in which container stock will be installed, amended backfill (approved loam soil mix with between 20-40% organic matter by volume) shall be placed around their root balls to a width at least twice the diameter of the root ball and to a depth of at least one quarter the depth of the root ball. Amended backfill shall be tamped moderately to remove air pockets and watered thoroughly while backfilling around the root ball. Shall cover the root ball when roots are exposed on the upper surface of root ball. 17.Cuttings shall be installed within areas labeled as mesic or facultative hydroseres (i.e. zones), or as indicated in the plan set. These locations are generally at or near bankfull elevation. Cuttings shall be cottonwoods or willows, as specified in the "planting palette" of this plan set. Willow cuttings shall be installed at a frequency indicated in the "planting schedule". Harvesting and installation of cuttings (willow/cottonwood) shall follow the "field guide for harvesting and installing willow and cottonwood cuttings" (www.synergy3.org). Cuttings shall be ecotypes harvested from native populations. 18.Soil lifts, joint planting, and other bioengineering treatments shall follow typical details of the plan set. DRAF T DRAFT 30% Design Co l l e g e a n d T r i l b y , For t C o l l i n s , CO E1 04/29/2024 I I I I I I I I I I I C o3 ::J C en en .-+ l8 JEIOS ----------.... -- 100 300 400 ft LEGEND Planting Plan ·:::: Mesic Meadow Seed (1.48 ac) ·:::: Facultative Seed (2 .62 ac)D Upland Seed (6 .26 ac) Mesic Meadow Containers (1.48 ac) Facultative Containers (1.19 ac) Mesori arian Containers 0.58 ac -""'=:--==-----....--=---==: ..... .,... ---:::== � --:::-.,,.�-=--=-=----------� ........_ -.... -� -= ----- --� ---- - -- - - � �--=--· ,,- -----=-------- LBl AMH snaAV a6a1108 S 8AV a6a1108 SL8l AMH sn DRAFT 30% Design D Xeroriparian Containers (0.71 _ac) DATE: 04/29/2024 Willow and Cottonwood Cuttings (0.17 ac) 1-------.---------,D Property Boundaries ••••• Project Boundary -Project -Proposed D 450' Red-tailed Hawk ci::: 0 LL 0 LU 0::: � LU 0::: a. ::;.: cc 0 LU 0::: � LU 0::: a. C ro -a.. O"'I C·- ,-4,-1 C ro -a.. 0 u "' V) C·---0 u ,-4,-1 :i.... 0 LL � ....c -·-t-= -0 C ro Q) O"'I Q) --0 u EPSG: 2231 NADB3 Colorado North SHEET NO.: E4 f- f-- It- -------,__.. I I I I I I I I I C o3 ::J C en en .-+ l8 JEIOS � 0 I I I 300 I 400 ft I � LEGEND Erosion Control � CC4 (2.62 ac) , DRAFT 30% Design D Property Boundaries DATE: -----Project Boundary -Proposed GradingD 450' Red-tailed Hawk Buffer r---_____ ____ ----m Koir 700 with Straw Underneath (1.48 ac) ·:::: Wood Straw (6.26 ac) ;------'r--------...---,. __ r---.----------,-----,--�--------..., . . . . . . . -.. ..... ·.·.·········•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•: ••••••• •••• •·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•· ... ··········........... ········ .......... ········ ... . ••••• ·.•:•.······················ • •·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•· ··············· . . . . ... : . : . : . : . : . : . : -: -: . : . : . : . : .. : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : : : : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : . : .......... : . : . : • • • • • • ••••••••••• : • : • : : : • : • : • : • : •••••••••••• : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : • : •••••••••••••••••••••••• ■ • : • • • • • • • • • • • : : ~ • • • • • • •••••• : • :\ • • ---. . . X; . ; . : . : . : . : . : ; : ; : : : : : : : = = = : = : = : = : = : = : = : = : = : = : = : = : = : : : : : : : : : : : . : . : . : . :-= .•.•. ::... .. : , : -r:-:i:.+: : : •. : . : .. : . : . : . : . : . : . �. • . • . • . . . . . . : . : . �. , . LBl AMH snaAV a6a1108 S 8AV a6a1108 SLBl AMH sn ci::: 0 0 LU0::: � LU 0::: a. :,:.: cc 0 LU0::: F� LU0::: a. 0 u "" V) C·---0-u 0 I-,-4,-1 ,-4,-1 I-C 0 0 LL u C 0 -·-·-t-=V)0 --0I-LU Cro Q) 01 Q) --0 u I EPSG: 2231 NADB3 Colorado North SHEET NO.: E5 04/29/2024 DATE: Dr a f t S e e d M i x e s SHEET NO.: PR E P A R E D F O R : PR E P A R E D B Y : E6 DRAFT 30% Design 04/29/2024 Co l l e g e a n d T r i l b y , For t C o l l i n s , CO DATE: Dr a f t P l a n t P a l e t t e s SHEET NO.: PR E P A R E D F O R : PR E P A R E D B Y : DRAFT 30% Design E7 04/29/2024 Co l l e g e a n d T r i l b y , For t C o l l i n s , CO DATE: Ty p i c a l s SHEET NO.: PR E P A R E D F O R : PR E P A R E D B Y : 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 detail DO W N H I L L SL O P E Overlap (TYP.) 6" Erosion control blanket EROSION CONTROL MATTING - TRENCH DETAIL CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE Backfilled trench Stake or staple 6" 6" PREVAILING WIND AND/OR STREAM FLOW DIRECTION 6" NOTES: 1. 2. Remove all rocks and logs greater than 4” diameter (st size) and seed area before applying erosion matting. Before installing erosion matting, decompact and prepare seedbed as indicated in project-specic restoration notes. 3. Seed and harrow area. 4. Use 100% biodegradable matting. 5. 6. Lay blankets loosely and install according to project specications with staples or wood stakes to secure matting. Stakes will have a maximum spacing of 24” on all sides in a checkerboard pattern. 7. Upwind portions of erosion control shall overlap 12” over the top of downwind portion. When applicable, upgradient portions of blanket shall overlap 12” of downgradient portions of blanket. Stakes shall be installed in a zig-zag pattern every 12”. 8. Erions control blankets shall be keyed into soil at the top of slope and upstream ends of project to a depth of 6”. These trenches shall be secured using staples or wood stakes, 18” on center, then backlled with soil and tamped well. 9. Density of stakes is depending on slope; claried in project-specic restoration notes. SHRUB PLANTING CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE 25 - 50% Deeper than rootball 2x Rootball diameter NOTES: 1.Broken or crumbling rootballs will be rejected. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Care should be taken not to damage the shrub or rootball when removing it from its container. Backfll around rootball with soil that does not exceed specifcations in restoration notes. Excavate planting pit 2x the diameter fo the rootball and 25-50% deeper than height of rootball. Add backfll around rootball in 2” layers, watering each layer before applying the next of soil. Add 2” of mulch to cover 18” of the ground/dripline, leaving 1” open around trunk of shrub. Use part of the excavated soil to build an irrigation berm at the edge of dripline, about 1-2” high and 3-4” wide. Import soil as needed from nearby harvest sites. 2x depth of mulch Irrigation berm Undisturbed soil Amended backfll Container shrub Leave 3-4 later branches and terminal branch (do not cut terminal buds) Soil (dry) Max 5’ above ground Min. 3' of cutting below ground 6” min. Capillary fringe Low-season water table COTTONWOOD POLE PLANTING CROSS SECTION (TYPICAL)NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. 2. All harvested cottonwood cuttings shall be lively and straight, harvested within 50 miles of the project site, and no more than 500' lower or higher in elevation than the project site. If harvested, cuttings shall be obtained from approved sources using a sharp tool. 3.The pole should be approximately 8' in length. 4. 5. Cutting shall have a basal end of 1.0-2.0” in diameter. The top ends shall have the terminal bud with three lateral branches beneath the terminal bud intact. The contractor shall provide for the proper care, storage, and handing of the cuttings. During all stages of construction, the cuttings shall be protected from exposure to wind and direct sunlight. 6. 7. 8. 9. Cuttings shall soak for 10-20 days prior to installation, maintaining well oxygenated water while soaking. The bottom 2" should be re-cut at an angle immediately prior to installation. An auger or hammer drill must be used to create a pilot hole prior to installation of cottonwood poles. Backfill with very wet sand or loam, and tamp to ensure no voids develop around stem. Other suggested willow and cottonwood harvest guidelines are found at www.aloterraservices.com 12” min. WILLOW CUTTING CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE 8-12” above ground surface Willow cutting NOTES: 1. All willow cuttings shall be sound, healthy specimens. Plant materials that have serious injuries, insect pests, diseases or are overly dry, will be rejected. 2. If harvested, cuttings shall be obtained from approved sources using a sharp tool. Cuttings shall be long enough to reach depth of 6” into the groundwater during the driest times of the year. 3. Cutting shall have a basal end of 0.50-1.5” in diameter. The top ends shall be blunt and butt ends shall be cut at 45 degrees. They shall be stripped of all but two or three healthy terminal stems. 4. The contractor shall provide for the proper care, storage, and handing of the cuttings. During all stages of construction, the cuttings shall be protected from exposure to wind and direct sunlight. 5. Prior to installation, the contractor shall ag all planting locations for approval by owner’s rep. Adjustments to these locations may be required to meet eld conditions. 6. If cuttings cannot be installed directly into the required depth due to soil conditions, a dibble bar, auger or other tool shall be used to create a pilot hole. Space around hole must be eliminated to ensure good soil-stem contact. 7. Additional industry standards should be followed to ensure high survival rates. Pilot hole Existing soil Lowest seasonal groundwater level 6” min Min 8” of soil above low season groundwater Pack soil against planted cutting. DRAFT 30% Design Co l l e g e a n d T r i l b y , For t C o l l i n s , CO E8 04/29/2024