Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MONTAVA - PHASE D CORE - BDR240006 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ECS Report
Denver • Durango • Hotchkiss • Idaho www.eroresources.com Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for— Montava 430 North College Avenue, Suite 410 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation 1626 Cole Boulevard, Suite 100 Lakewood, Colorado 80401 (303) 830-1188 ERO Project #6965 April 17, 2024 Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 i ERO Resources Corporation Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ii Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Project Area Location ............................................................................................................. 2 Summary of Ecological Setting ................................................................................................ 2 Vegetation Communities ........................................................................................................ 5 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) ............................................................................. 5 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Project Area Conditions ................................................................................................................... 7 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species .................................................................... 9 Potential Habitat and Possible Effects ........................................................................................... 10 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse ................................................................................................. 11 Tricolored Bat ................................................................................................................................. 12 Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid ............................................................................................................. 12 Other Species of Concern ..................................................................................................... 13 Migratory Birds .............................................................................................................................. 13 Other Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 14 Views .................................................................................................................................. 15 Impacts and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 15 References ........................................................................................................................... 16 Tables Table 1. Wetland and open water jurisdictional features identified in the project area. .............. 7 Table 2. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in the project area. .............................................................................................................................. 9 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 4 Appendices Appendix A Photo Log Appendix B Routine Wetland Determination Datasheets Appendix C Commonly Occurring Plant Species in the Project Area Appendix D Natural Habitat and Features Potentially Occurring in or Near the Project Area Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 ii ERO Resources Corporation Executive Summary Montava retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide an Ecological Characterization Study for Phase D of Montava, an 850-acre proposed development south of Richards Lake Road and west of Interstate 25 (I-25) in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (project area). ERO assessed Phase D for potential wetlands and waters of the U.S., potential federally listed threatened and endangered species habitat, migratory birds and active nests, other wildlife, and visual resources. Below is a summary of the resources found at the project area Phase D and recommendations or future actions necessary based on the current site conditions and regulations. The natural resources and associated regulations described in this report are valid as of the date of this report and may be relied upon for the specific use for which it was prepared by ERO under contract to Montava. Because of their dynamic natures, site conditions and regulations should be reconfirmed by a qualified consultant before relying on this report for a use other than that for which it was specifically prepared. Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. – A wetland swale occurs in the northwest portion of the project area. Wetland 2 appears to be supported by agricultural runoff and stormwater flows. The swale appears to be isolated, with no surface connection to any known waters of the U.S. and was previously considered nonjurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and, therefore, no action is necessary. Threatened and Endangered Species – The project area does not contain habitat for any federally listed species; therefore, no action is necessary regarding threatened and endangered species. Migratory Birds – One potential oriole nest was observed during the 2024 site visit; additionally, trees, shrubs, and upland grasslands in the project area provide potential nesting habitat. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has identified the primary nesting season for migratory birds in Colorado as occurring from April 1 to September 15 (CPW 2021). However, some birds, such as the red-tailed hawk and great horned owl, can nest as early as February or March. Because of variability in the breeding seasons of various bird species, ERO recommends a nest survey be conducted within one week prior to construction to determine if any active nests are present in the project area so they can be avoided. If active nests are found, any work that would destroy the nests should not be conducted until the birds have vacated the nests. Other Wildlife – The project area is in the overall range of mule deer, white-tailed deer, mountain lion, and olive-backed pocket mouse, and in winter range for white-tailed deer. Richards Lake, Long Pond, and the Redwing Marsh natural area are west of the project area, and wildlife may occasionally forage in the project area due to the proximity of these natural habitat features. Raptors and other wildlife may occasionally forage in the project area due to the proximity of these natural habitat features. However, because the project area is surrounded by residential developments to the north and west and Mountain Vista Drive to the south, and due to the lack of vegetation structure in the project area, it is unlikely the project area provides significant habitat for wildlife. Any wildlife using the project area has likely become adapted to human disturbance due to the proximity of I-25 and nearby development. Views – The area surrounding the project area is largely undeveloped, surrounded mainly by agricultural fields and a residential development to the northwest. The project area is visible from surrounding roads. The mountains to the west, including Long’s Peak, can be easily seen from almost any vantage point in the project area. Richards Lake and Long Pond, located west of the project area, are currently not visible from the project area due to topographic relief and vegetation. ERO Project #6965 1 ERO Resources Corporation Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado April 17, 2024 Introduction Montava retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) for Phase D of a larger 850-acre property south of Richards Lake Road and west of Interstate 25 (I- 25)in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (project area). On March 29, 2024, Erin Cubley and Jared Dubiel with ERO visited the project area to review potential natural resources (2024 site visit). During this assessment, activities included a review of water features in the project area, identification of potential federally listed threatened and endangered species habitat, and identification of other natural resources that might affect development of the project area. This ECS provides information on existing site conditions and resources, as well as current regulatory requirements related to those resources. ERO assumes the landowner or project proponent is responsible for obtaining all federal, state, and local permits for construction of the project. Section 3.4.1 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code requires an ECS for development sites that contain, or are located within 500 feet of, an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feature of the City of Fort Collins Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map or that are discovered during site evaluations associated with the development review process. As required under Article 3, this ECS describes the following: (a)the wildlife use of the area showing the species of wildlife using the area, the times or seasons that the area is used by those species, and the “value” (meaning feeding, watering, cover, nesting, roosting, and perching) that the area provides for such wildlife species; (b)the boundary of wetlands in the area and a description of the ecological functions and characteristics provided by those wetlands; (c)any prominent views from or across the site; (d)the pattern, species, and location of any significant native trees and other native site vegetation; (e)the bank, shoreline, and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water on the site; (f)areas inhabited by or frequently used by Sensitive and Specially Valued Species; (g)special habitat features; (h)wildlife movement corridors; Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 2 ERO Resources Corporation (i)the general ecological functions provided by the site and its features; (j)any issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological character of the area; and (k)any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of the development project on natural habitats and features. Project Area Location The project area is in Section 32 and Section 33, Township 8 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1). The UTM coordinates for the approximate center of the project area are 498073mE, 4496087mN, Zone 13 North. The longitude/latitude of the project area is 105.022780°W/40.615605°N. The elevation of the project area is approximately 5,000 feet above sea level. Photo points are shown on Figure 2, and the photo log is included in Appendix A. Summary of Ecological Setting The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) maps the project area in the southern part of the Central High Plains Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA), which is characterized by a flat to gently rolling landscape formed by glacial drift material and sediment deposition from the Rocky Mountains (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2006). This MLRA is part of the Colorado Piedmont section of the Great Plains physiographic province and ranges in elevation from 3,000 to 7,800 feet. The climate of the area is typical of mid-continental semiarid temperate zones, but the strong rain shadow effect of the Southern Rocky Mountains makes the area somewhat drier. The average annual precipitation is 12 to 18 inches, most of which occurs from April through September. The mean annual temperature is 45°F to 55°F with the number of frost-free days ranging from 135 to 190. The project area is further divided into the Front Range Fans ecoregion of Colorado (Chapman et al. 2006). The geology of the Front Range Fans ecoregion generally consists of outwash gravels with soils formed from materials weathered from arkosic sedimentary rock, gravelly alluvium, and redbed shales and sandstone. Located in the South Platte River watershed of central Colorado, streams flow from west to east, out of the Front Range Mountains and foothills or from southeast to northwest off the Palmer Divide, and into the South Platte River. The South Platte River converges with the North Platte River just west of Ogallala, Nebraska to form the Platte River. The Platte River is tributary to the Missouri River, which eventually flows into the Mississippi River. Most of the tributaries that flow into the South Platte River watershed contain riparian corridors dominated by deciduous woodlands and transitional shrubs and grasslands. Project Area Prepared for: Chase MerrittFile: 6965 Figure 1.mxd (GS)April 19, 2024 ± Figure 1Vicinity MapLarimer CR 50 at I-25 Ecological Characterization Memo Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2024 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 1,500750Feet Location Pa t h : P : \ 6 9 0 0 P r o j e c t s \ 6 9 6 5 L a r i m e r C R 5 0 a t I - 2 5 P h a s e 1 E S A - N R A \ M a p s \ N R \ P h a s e D \ 6 9 6 5 F i g u r e 1 . m x d Sections 32 and 33, T8N, R68W; 6th PM UTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 498073mE, 4496087mN Longitude 105.022780°W, Latitude 40.615605°N USGS Fort Collins, CO QuadrangleLarimer County, Colorado & & & && !. Gi d d i n g s R o a d Mountain Vista Drive See InsetNu m b e r 8 O u t l e t D i t c h P4 P1 P2 P8 P3 Prepared for: Chase MerrittFile: 6965 Figure 2.mxd (GS)April 16, 2024 ± Figure 2Existing ConditionsLarimer CR 50 at I-25 Ecological Characterization Memo Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2024 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 450225Feet Pa t h : P : \ 6 9 0 0 P r o j e c t s \ 6 9 6 5 L a r i m e r C R 5 0 a t I - 2 5 P h a s e 1 E S A - N R A \ M a p s \ N R \ P h a s e D \ 6 9 6 5 F i g u r e 2 . m x d Image Source: Google Earth©, August 20, 2023 !.Data Point &Photo Point !.Hanging Nest Wetland Swale with Top of Bank (0.250 ac) Area of Construction Project Area Boundary & & & !.!. Inset DP5 DP4 P5 P6 P7 Active Agriculture Developed Festuca Monoculture Mixed GrasslandNonnative Grassland - Kochiaand Smooth Brome Dominant Russian Olives Siberian Elms Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 5 ERO Resources Corporation The majority of the ecoregion primarily consists of plains, with a high percentage of cropland. Most of the land use has or is currently undergoing a shift from cropland and rangeland to urban development. The development has resulted in a shift from native habitat to urban areas that contain a high number of manmade lakes and gravel pits. Vegetation Communities The project area is surrounded by agricultural land, bordered generally by Mountain Vista Drive to the south, Number 8 Outlet Ditch to the west, and Giddings Road to the east (Figure 2). The primary vegetation communities in the project area consist of active agricultural land (Photo 1), nonnative grassland (Photo 2), and mixed grasslands (Photo 3 and Photo 4). Agricultural lands in the project area include crop species and a monoculture of blue fescue (Festuca glauca). The nonnative grassland vegetation is a mixture of kochia (Kochia scoparia) and smooth brome (Bromus inermis). The mixed grassland vegetation includes alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), blue fescue, common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), curly dock (Rumex crispus), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), kochia, milkweed (asclepias sp.), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), setaria (Setaria sp.), smooth brome, and thick spike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus). In addition, a wetland swale runs through the northwestern portion of the project area (Figure 2; Photo 5 and Photo 6). Wetland vegetation in the swale is dominated by cattail (Typha sp.). The wetland swale has been impacted by ongoing construction occurring near the western boundary of the project area (Figure 2; Photo 6 and Photo 7). Small stands of Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumilla) occur in the eastern portion of the project area (Figure 2; Photo 4). The central portion of the project area also contains developed land with currently or formerly used agricultural and residential structures (Figure 2; Photo 8). Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) Background The Clean Water Act (CWA) protects the chemical, physical, and biological quality of WOTUS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) Regulatory Program administers and enforces Section 404 of the CWA. Under Section 404, a Corps permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and other WOTUS (streams, ponds, and other waterbodies). Since the regulatory program was initiated, the definition of WOTUS has changed frequently due to United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) decisions and new rules proposed by presidential administrations. On August 29, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Corps announced a final rule amending the 2023 definition of “waters of the U.S.” to conform with the Supreme Court ruling under Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 21-454. The amended rule reduces the jurisdiction of the CWA over wetlands adjacent to bodies of water that do not have a continuous surface connection to other known WOTUS, as well as streams that do not have continuous flowing or relatively permanent water. The amended rule removes the “significant nexus” standard that was created under Rapanos v. United States, removes interstate wetlands from the definition of WOTUS, and revises the definition of “adjacent” to Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 6 ERO Resources Corporation mean “having a continuous surface connection.” Wetlands that do not have a contiguous surface connection to a jurisdictional traditionally navigable water or tributary are no longer jurisdictional, as well as ephemeral streams that do not have relatively permanent water. Potential rulings and guidance in the future could change the results of this report regarding the jurisdictional status of waters and wetlands in the project area. While ERO may provide its opinion on the likely jurisdictional status of wetlands and waters, the Corps will make the final determination of jurisdiction based on the current rulings. Methods During the 2024 site visit, ERO surveyed the project area for wetlands, streambeds, and open waters; however, a jurisdictional wetland delineation following Corps guidelines was not conducted during this assessment. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation was conducted in 2018 and 2021 (2018 and 2021 site visits). Prior to the 2024 site visit, ERO reviewed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle topographic maps and aerial photography to identify mapped streams and areas of open water that could indicate wetlands or WOTUS. ERO also reviewed the proximity and potential surface water connection of wetlands to known jurisdictional WOTUS using aerial photo interpretation, landowner information, and information from the 2024 site visit, as well as data obtained during the 2018 and 2021 site visits. During the 2018 and 2021 site visits, ERO conducted a formal wetland delineation following the methods for routine on-site wetland determinations in areas of less than 5 acres as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and used methods in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0) (Corps 2010) to record data on vegetation, soils, and hydrology on routine determination forms (Appendix B). The Corps defines wetlands as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.2(c)). Wetland boundaries were determined by a visible change in vegetation community, soils, topographic changes, and other visible distinctions between wetlands and uplands. The wetland indicator status of plant species was identified using the National Wetland Plant List (Corps 2020), taxonomy was determined using Flora of Colorado (Ackerfield 2015) and Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope (Weber et al. 2012), and nomenclature was determined using the PLANTS Database (USDA, NRCS 2024). Commonly occurring plant species in the project area, including the wetland indicator status, are listed in Appendix C. If present, hydric soils were identified using field observation for hydric soil indicators accepted by the Corps. Soil data were not collected in conditions where there was a clear lack of hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation indicators. Where soil data were collected, a Munsell soil color chart was used to determine soil color. Intermittent, ephemeral, and perennial drainages with characteristics of a defined streambed, streambank, ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and other erosional features also were identified. The Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 7 ERO Resources Corporation OHWM identifies the lateral jurisdictional limits of nonwetland WOTUS. Federal jurisdiction over nonwetland WOTUS extends to the OHWM, defined in 33 CFR 328.3 as “the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The Corps defines “stream bed” as “the substrate of the stream channel between the OHWMs. The substrate may be bedrock or inorganic particles that range in size from clay to boulders.” The boundaries of identified wetlands and other characteristics of potential WOTUS were mapped using a Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Data were differentially corrected using the CompassCom base station. All differential correction was completed using Trimble Pathfinder Office 5.9 software. GPS data were incorporated using ESRI® ArcGIS Desktop software. Additionally, where appropriate, wetlands were drawn on georectified aerials and then digitized. Project Area Conditions Streams and Open Water Prior to the 2018 and 2021 site visits, ERO reviewed USGS quadrangle topographic maps, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and aerial photography to identify mapped streams and areas of open water that could indicate wetlands or WOTUS. The USGS Fort Collins, Colorado topographic quadrangle and NHD do not show any natural drainages occurring in the project area. The Number 8 Outlet Ditch is shown on the USGS Fort Collins topographic quadrangle and NHD as occurring just outside the western boundary of the project area for Phase D (Figure 2). Wetlands During the 2018 and 2021 site visits, data were collected from various locations in the project area to document the characteristics of uplands and wetlands, and the transition areas between them. The following sections contain information on potential surface water connections of wetlands and other waters in the project area. Table 1 provides a summary of the mapped wetland, including and hydrogeomorphic classification (HGM) and acreage. Approximately 0.25 acre of wetlands occur in the project area (Figure 2). Table 1. Wetland and open water jurisdictional features identified in the project area. Water/Wetland ID Longitude Latitude Wetlands (Acre) Open Water (Acre) HGM Wetland swale 105.025710 40.618220 0.25 Palustrine Emergent Depressional Wetland Swale The wetland swale is in the northwestern portion of the project area, just east of the Number 8 Outlet Ditch (Figure 2). The wetland swale appears to be supported by agricultural runoff and stormwater flows. The wetland swale appears to be isolated, with no surface connection to any known WOTUS and is described in more detail below. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 8 ERO Resources Corporation Vegetation Emergent wetlands (wetland swale) were delineated in the project area adjacent to a mixed upland grassland and a tilled field in the northwestern portion of the project area. The wetlands are dominated by cattail. Other vegetation observed included Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and milkweed. At data point (DP)4, the vegetation met the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. DP5 consisted primarily of upland species and did not meet the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. Soils The NRCS mapped the soils in this area as Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (USDA, NRCS 2024b). Hydric soils were assumed at DP4 based on the prevalence of obligate wetland species and inundation of the soils. No soil data were collected at DP5 based on the presence of upland vegetation. Hydrology Primary hydrologic indicators, including surface water to a depth of 2 inches, a high water table at the soil surface, and saturation at the soil surface, were observed at DP4. No hydrology indicators were observed at DP5. See Appendix B for additional details for each DP. Wetland Functions During the 2018 and 2021 site visits, ERO identified ecological stressors in the wetlands. An understanding of the ecological functions of the stream and adjacent wetland and riparian areas can assist in the analysis and mitigation of potential impacts. Studies have recognized that riverine and palustrine systems provide particular functions to the environment. These functions are the chemical, physical, and biological processes or attributes vital to the integrity of riparian systems. Researchers recognize a variety of wetland and riparian functions that typically are related to water quality, biodiversity, and hydrological and ecological processes. The wetlands in the project area are low functioning due their location adjacent to agricultural fields and along the wetland swale. Most of the wetlands are dominated by cattail or reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and do not contain a high diversity of species or a variety of structure. Additionally, the wetlands appear to be supported by agricultural and stormwater runoff, not natural surface water or groundwater flows. Most of the wetlands are immediately adjacent to upland areas that appear to receive nutrient runoff from nearby agricultural areas. However, the wetlands likely provide habitat for wildlife or migratory birds and could potentially serve as a wildlife corridor through the project area. The southeastern portion of the wetlands have been impacted by construction activities since the 2021 site visit. Overall, the wetlands in the project area are low functioning. Recommendations On August 5, 2022, the Corps issued a jurisdictional determination for the isolated irrigation ditches and wetlands on the Montava property (Corps 2022). The Corps determined that the wetland swale (labeled as Wetland 2 in the determination) is not a WOTUS and, therefore, no further action is necessary. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 9 ERO Resources Corporation Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species During the 2024 site visit, ERO assessed the project area for potential habitat for threatened, endangered, and candidate species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Federally threatened and endangered species are protected under the ESA. Adverse effects on a federally listed species or its habitat require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under Section 7 or Section 10 of the ESA. The Service lists several threatened and endangered species with potential habitat in Larimer County, or that would be potentially affected by projects in Larimer County (Table 2). Table 2. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Habitat Present or Potential to be Affected by Project? Mammals Gray wolf Canis lupus T Found in temperate forests, mountains, tundra, taiga, and grasslands No; outside of known range Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Preble’s) Zapus hudsonius preblei T Shrub riparian/wet meadows No habitat Tricolored bat Perimyotis subflavus PE Forested areas near riparian zones; caves, mines, and rock crevices used as night roosts; human structures may be used for maternity colonies Potential; see discussion below Birds Eastern black rail Laterallus jamaicensis T Shallow cattail wetlands and wet sedge meadows with dense cover in the Arkansas River drainage in southeastern Colorado and the Republican River in east-central Colorado No habitat Piping plover** Charadrius melodus T Sandy lakeshore beaches and river sandbars No habitat and no depletions anticipated Whooping crane** Grus americana E Mudflats around reservoirs and in agricultural areas No habitat and no depletions anticipated Fish Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias T Clear, swift-flowing mountain streams with cover such as overhanging banks and vegetation and mountain lakes No habitat Pallid sturgeon** Scaphirhynchus albus E Large, turbid, free-flowing rivers with a strong current and gravel or sandy substrate No habitat and no depletions anticipated Invertebrates Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus plexippus C Dependent on milkweeds (Asclepiadoideae) as host plants and forage on blooming flowers; a summer resident Milkweed is present Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 10 ERO Resources Corporation Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat Habitat Present or Potential to be Affected by Project? Plants Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (ULTO) Spiranthes diluvialis T Moist to wet alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial streams, and around springs and lakes below 7,800 feet in elevation No habitat Western prairie fringed orchid** Platanthera praeclara T Moist to wet prairies and meadows No habitat and no depletions anticipated *T = Federally Threatened Species; E = Federally Endangered Species; C = Candidate Species; PE = Proposed Endangered species. **Water depletions in the South Platte River may affect the species and/or critical habitat in downstream reaches in other counties or states. Source: Service 2024. Potential Habitat and Possible Effects Suitable habitat for gray wolf, eastern black rail, and greenback cutthroat trout was not observed in the project area during the 2024 site visit. The piping plover, whooping crane, pallid sturgeon, and western prairie fringed orchid are species that are affected by depletions to the Platte River system. Based on ERO’s knowledge of the types of activities likely to be implemented as part of the project, there would be no depletions to the South Platte River. If the project includes activities that deplete water in the South Platte River, such as diverting water from a stream or developing new water supplies, these species could be affected by the project and consultation with the Service may be required. Monarch butterflies migrate through Colorado in the summer, although the project area is not within a designated migration corridor or breeding or overwintering area for this species (Service 2019). Monarch butterflies are dependent on milkweeds (primarily Asclepias spp.) as a host plant for egg laying and larval development. Several scattered milkweeds were observed in the project area during the 2024 site visit. The monarch butterfly may occasionally travel through the project area but is not likely to lay eggs because host plants appear to be lacking. As a candidate species, monarch butterflies are not currently under federal regulation. Potential habitat for Preble’s and ULTO is generally more prevalent in areas across the Colorado Front Range. Because these species are more likely to be addressed by counties and regulatory agencies such as the Corps, a more detailed discussion is provided below. Additionally, human structures in the project area have the potential to be used by tricolored bats, and a more detailed discussion of this species is also provided below. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 11 ERO Resources Corporation Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Species Background Preble’s was listed as a threatened species on May 13, 1998. Several petitions to delist Preble’s have been filed with the Service since 2011. On March 30, 2017, a petition to delist Preble’s was filed; the Service found that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting Preble’s may be warranted (83 Federal Register (FR) 16819). The Service refers to this finding as a “not substantial” petition finding (83 FR 16819). On August 10, 2018, the Service announced the initiation of a five-year status review for Preble’s (83 FR 39771). Until the completion of this five-year finding, Preble’s remains protected under the ESA. Preble’s is found along the foothills of southeastern Wyoming and southward along the eastern edge of the Colorado Front Range to Colorado Springs (Clark and Stromberg 1987). The semiarid climate in southeastern Wyoming and eastern Colorado limits the extent of riparian corridors and, therefore, restricts Preble’s range, which is associated with these corridors. Along the Colorado Front Range, Preble’s is found below 7,800 feet in elevation, generally in lowlands with medium to high moisture along permanent or intermittent streams. Preble’s prefers riparian areas featuring well-developed, multistoried, and horizontal cover with an understory of grasses and forbs (Bakeman 1997; Armstrong et al. 1997). Preble’s typically inhabits areas characterized by plains riparian vegetation with relatively undisturbed grassland and a water source nearby (Armstrong et al. 2011). High-use areas for Preble’s tend to be close to creeks and are associated with a high percentage of shrubs, grasses, and woody debris (Trainor et al. 2007). Previous studies have suggested that Preble’s may have a wider ecological tolerance than previously thought and that the requirement for diverse vegetation and well-developed cover can be met under a variety of circumstances (Armstrong et al. 1997). Radio-tracking studies conducted by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) have documented Preble’s using upland habitat adjacent to wetlands and riparian areas (Shenk and Sivert 1999). Additional research by CPW has suggested that habitat quality for Preble’s can be predicted by the amount of shrub cover available at a site (White and Shenk 2000). Mountain riparian sites may be surrounded by dense forest vegetation (such as ponderosa pine in Colorado), and sites on the plains have less woody vegetation. Potential Habitat and Recommendations During the 2024 site visit, ERO assessed the project area for potential Preble’s habitat. The project area is dominated by agricultural land and weedy nonnative vegetation species and does not contain any potential habitat for Preble’s. The project area does not contain a sufficient shrub cover by sandbar willow (Salix exigua) and other riparian shrubs that are typically associated with known Preble’s habitat. The potential wetland along the ditches in the project area are dominated by cattails, vegetation not typically associated with Preble’s. The closest known population of Preble’s is more than 7 miles northwest of the project area, and several habitat assessments and trapping surveys have been completed near the project area in better habitat with no Preble’s or suitable Preble’s habitat identified (URS Greiner Woodward 2004; ERO Resources Corporation 2000; MDG Inc. 2001). Because the project area does not contain any potential habitat for Preble’s, no further action is necessary. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 12 ERO Resources Corporation Tricolored Bat Species Background The tricolored bat, formerly known as the eastern pipistrelle, is currently proposed as endangered under the ESA (Service 2017). The Colorado National Heritage Program ranks the tricolored bat as S2, imperiled in the state (CPW 2015). The primary threat to the tricolored bat is White-Nose Syndrome, a disease caused by the fungal pathogen Pseudogymnoascus destructans. The disease has severely reduced tricolored bat overall populations, with estimated population declines of 90 to 100 percent across 59 percent of the species' range (Cheng et al. 2021). Tricolored bats roost in maternity colonies during the spring and summer months to breed and raise young. They are commonly found in manmade structures as well as trees, caves, and rock crevices (Fujita and Kunz 1984). During the fall and winter months, tricolored bats enter hibernation and mainly use caves or more rarely manmade structures, selecting their location largely based on the consistency of temperature (Briggler and Prather 2002). Females are known to exhibit high site fidelity, returning year after year to the same summer roosting locations and choosing hibernacula that is close to such locations, as well as tending to use the roost locations of their birth (Veilleux and Veilleux 2004). The tricolored bat’s range historically consisted primarily of the eastern portions of the U.S., Canada, and portions of Mexico. In recent decades, it has expanded its range westward, with records in New Mexico, South Dakota, west Texas, western Nebraska, and Wyoming (Geluso et al. 2005). Along the Colorado Front Range, established populations and reproductive success have been identified in Boulder and Weld Counties, as well as state parks such as Chatfield State Park (CPW and Newton 2023; Adams et al. 2018). Potential Habitat and Recommendations Riparian areas and forest margins surrounding and in the larger project area contain potential foraging habitat for the tricolored bat. Abandoned or currently in-use structures in the project area could provide potential colony habitat for the bat. As a proposed endangered species, tricolored bats are not currently under federal regulation; therefore, no action is currently necessary. If the tricolored bat should become officially listed under the ESA, further coordination with the Service may be necessary. Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid Species Background ULTO is federally listed as threatened. ULTO occurs at elevations below 7,800 feet in moist to wet alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial streams, and around springs and lakes where the soil is seasonally saturated within 18 inches of the surface. Generally, the species occurs where the vegetative cover is relatively open and not overly dense or overgrazed. Once thought to be fairly common in low- elevation riparian areas in the interior western United States, ULTO is now rare (Service 1992a). The species’ known range has been extended since the Service ruled to list ULTO as a threatened species in 1992, from Colorado and Wyoming to British Columbia. The largest known populations occur in Utah, followed by Colorado (NatureServe 2024). Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 13 ERO Resources Corporation In Colorado, the Service requires surveys in habitat in the 100-year floodplain of the South Platte River, Fountain Creek, and Yampa River and their perennial tributaries, or in any area with suitable habitat in Boulder and Jefferson Counties. ULTO does not bloom until late July to early September (depending on the year) and timing of surveys must be synchronized with blooming (Service 1992b). Potential Habitat and Recommendations ERO assessed the project area for potential ULTO habitat. Because a perennial tributary to the South Platte River does not occur in the project area and the project area is in Larimer County, the project area does not fall within the Service’s guidelines for ULTO surveys (Service 1992b); therefore, no action is necessary regarding ULTO. Other Species of Concern Migratory Birds Background Migratory birds, as well as their eggs and nests, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). While destruction of a nest by itself is not prohibited under the MBTA, nest destruction that results in the unpermitted take of migratory birds or their eggs is illegal (Service 2003). The regulatory definition of a take means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect (50 CFR 10.12). Under the MBTA, the Service may issue nest depredation permits, which allow a permittee to remove an active nest. The Service, however, issues few permits and only under specific circumstances, usually related to human health and safety. Obtaining a nest depredation permit is unlikely and involves a process that may take a significant amount of time. In addition, CPW has recommended buffers for nesting raptors, depending on the species (generally 0.33 or 0.25 mile) (CPW 2020). The best way to comply with the MBTA is to remove vegetation outside of the active breeding season, which typically falls between March and August, depending on the species. Public awareness of the MBTA has grown in recent years, and most MBTA enforcement actions are the result of a concerned member of the community reporting noncompliance. Potential Habitat and Possible Effects A single potential oriole nest was observed during the 2024 site visit (Figure 2). Bird species observed during the 2024 site visit included killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). Songbirds likely occur in the upland grasslands, wetland swales, and small grove of trees that occur in the project area. The breeding season for most birds in Colorado is March through August, with the exception of a few species that begin breeding in February, such as great-horned owls. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 14 ERO Resources Corporation Recommendations Vegetation removal should occur outside of the breeding season (typically September through February). Both the Denver Field Office of the Service (2009) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (2011) have identified the primary nesting season for migratory birds in eastern Colorado as occurring between April 1 and mid to late August. However, a few species, such as great horned owls and red-tailed hawks, can nest as early as February or March. Because of variability in the breeding seasons of various bird species, ERO recommends a nest survey be conducted within one week prior to construction to determine if any active nests are present in the project area so they can be avoided. Nest removal may occur during the nonbreeding season to discourage future nesting and avoid violations of the MBTA. No permit or approval is necessary for removing nests during the nonbreeding season; however, nests must be destroyed and may not be collected under MBTA regulations. If the construction schedule does not allow vegetation removal outside of the breeding season, a nest survey should be conducted within one week prior to vegetation removal to determine if the nest is active and by which species. If active nests are found, any work that would destroy the nests could not be conducted until the birds have vacated the nests. Other Wildlife The project area is in the overall range of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mountain lion (Puma concolor), and olive-backed pocket mouse (Perognathus fasciatus), and in winter range for white-tailed deer. Richards Lake, Long Pond, and the Redwing Marsh natural area are west of the project area, and wildlife may occasionally forage in the project area due to the proximity of these natural habitat features. However, because the project area is surrounded by Richards Lake Road, I-25, and residential development on the north and west, and due to the lack of vegetation structure in the project area, it is unlikely the project area provides significant habitat for wildlife. Furthermore, no wildlife movement corridors exist within the project area boundaries, and the Number 8 Outlet Ditch is too steep and degraded to provide any wildlife habitat or serve as a movement corridor. Any wildlife using the project area has likely become adapted to human disturbance due to the proximity of I-25 and nearby development. As with any human development, wildlife species sensitive to human disturbance are likely to decline in abundance or abandon the area, while other wildlife species adapted to development are likely to increase in abundance. Species likely to decline include some raptors and possibly coyotes (Canis latrans). Species likely to increase include red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and house mouse (Mus musculus). Overall, surrounding and continuing development contributes to a decline in the number and diversity of wildlife species nearby and to a change in species composition to favor species that adapt better to human disturbance. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 15 ERO Resources Corporation Views The area surrounding the project area is largely undeveloped, surrounded mainly by agricultural fields and a residential development to the northwest. The project area is visible from surrounding roads. The mountains to the west, including Long’s Peak, can be easily seen from almost any vantage point in the project area. Richards Lake and Long Pond, located west of the project area, are currently not visible from the project area due to topographic relief and vegetation. Impacts and Recommendations Montava proposes to develop the project area for residential and commercial use. Section 3.4.1 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code requires buffers of various widths around natural habitats and special features. However, the project area provides little ecological function due to the separation from the nearest natural area (Redwing Marsh), located more than 2 miles west of the project area, and little vegetation structure in the project area. The project area contains some grassland and woodland habitat that provides habitat for wildlife and migratory birds; however, these areas are scattered between agricultural fields and are not large enough to provide high-quality wildlife habitat. Most of the vegetation would be removed from the project area during construction; however, trees would be preserved where possible. Please see Appendix D for a list of additional natural features that can be found in or near the project area. Montava is proposing to create small channels or swales through the development to direct stormwater flows. These drainages would be planted with native seed mixes, shrubs, and trees that would also provide habitat for wildlife and serve as a wildlife corridor through the project area. The proposed project would impact 0.25 acre of wetlands in the project area. Montava is proposing to mitigate all wetland impacts by creating wetlands along the drainages constructed through the project area. The proposed wetlands along the drainages would likely be higher functioning than those being impacted because they would be planted with native species, have less nutrient runoff and higher water quality, be adjacent to native seeded uplands, and provide a larger wildlife movement corridor. Wildlife likely occasionally use the project area; however, because the project area is predominantly agricultural fields, habitat quality throughout the project area is low. Wildlife use of the project area would likely decrease due to increased human presence and use of the area after construction. If vegetation- or land-clearing activities occur during the nesting season for migratory birds, migratory birds or their nests or eggs could potentially be disturbed. ERO recommends that vegetation removal occur outside of the active breeding season, which is typically between March and August, depending on the species. If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, the project area should be surveyed for active nests by a qualified and experienced biologist. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 16 ERO Resources Corporation References Ackerfield, Jennifer. 2015. Flora of Colorado. First Edition. Fort Worth, Texas: Botanical Research Institute of Texas. Adams, Rick A., Burton Stoner, Donna Nespoli, and Sarah M. Bexell. 2018. “New Records of Tricolored Bats (Perimyotis Subflavus) in Colorado, with First Evidence of Reproduction.” Western North American Naturalist 78 (2): 212–15. https://doi.org/10.3398/064.078.0213. Armstrong, D. M., J. P. Fitzgerald, and C. A. Meaney. 2011. Mammals of Colorado, Second Edition. Second. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado. https://www.bibliovault.org/BV.book.epl?ISBN=9781607320470. Armstrong, David M., Mark E. Bakeman, Norman W. Clippinger, Alison Deans, Martin Margulies, Carron A. Meaney, Clinton Miller, Maureen O’Shea-Stone, Thomas R. Ryon, and Michael Sander. 1997. “Habitat of the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse at Rocky Flats, Colorado.” In Report on Habitat Findings of the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse, edited by Mark E. Bakeman, 18–32. Presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Bakeman, Mark E. 1997. “Trapping Survey Results Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along Coal Creek at U.S. 287.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Briggler, Jefferey T., and John W. Prather. 2002. “Seasonal Use and Selection of Caves by the Eastern Pipistrelle Bat (Pipistrellus Subflavus).” American Midland Naturalist 149 (November): 406–12. Chapman, Shannen S., Glenn E. Griffith, James M. Omernik, Alan B. Price, Jerry Freeouf, and Donald L. Schrupp. 2006. “Ecoregions of Colorado (Color Poster with Map, Descriptive Text, Summary Tables, and Photographs).” Albers equal area projection. Colorado: EPA, USGS. http://www.ecologicalregions.info/data/co/co_front.pdf. Cheng, Tina L., Jonathan D. Reichard, Jeremy T. H. Coleman, Theodore J. Weller, Wayne E. Thogmartin, Brian E. Reichert, Alyssa B. Bennett, et al. 2021. “The Scope and Severity of White-nose Syndrome on Hibernating Bats in North America.” Conservation Biology 35 (5): 1586–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13739. Clark, T.W., and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2015. “Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan.” Conservation Plan. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx. ———. 2020. “Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors.” https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/Raptor-Buffer- Guidelines.pdf. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and Tyler Newton. 2023. “2023 Bat Acoustic Survey Report for Chatfield State Park.” Survey. Chatfield State Park: CPW. P:\Natural Resources\Wildlife\Bats. CPW. 2021. “Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Recommendations to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Wildlife from Land Use Development in Colorado.” https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Conservation- Resources/Energy-Mining/CPW_HPH-Map-Layers.pdf. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.” Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. https://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Portals/38/docs/USACE%2087%20Wetland%20Delineation%20 Manual.pdf. ERO Resources Corporation. 2000. “Trapping Survey Results Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along the Larimer and Weld Canal.” Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 17 ERO Resources Corporation Fujita, Marty S., and Thomas H. Kunz. 1984. “Pipistrellus Subflavus.” In Mammalian Species, 6. 228. The American Society of Mammalogists. Geluso, Keith, Tony R Mollhagen, Joel M Tigner, and Michael A Bogan. 2005. “Westward Expansion Of The Eastern Pipistrelle (PIPISTRELLUS SUBFLAVUS) In The United States, Including New Records From New Mexico, South Dakota, And Texas.” WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN NATURALIST 65: 405–9. MDG Inc. 2001. “Trapping Survey Results Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along Lindenmeier Lake Ditch and Lower Eaton Lateral.” NatureServe. 2024. “Spiranthes Diluvialis | NatureServe Explorer.” Database. NatureServe Explorer. February 2, 2024. https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.129296/Spiranthes_diluvialis. Shenk, T.M., and M.M. Sivert. 1999. “Movement Patterns of Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus Hudsonius Preblei) as They Vary Across Time and Space.” Unpublished Report of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Trainor, Anne M., Tanya M. Shenk, and Kenneth R. Wilson. 2007. “Microhabitat Characteristics of Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse High-Use Areas.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 71 (2): 469–77. https://doi.org/10.2193/2005-555. URS Greiner Woodward. 2004. “Trapping Survey Results Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along Dry Creek at East Vine Drive.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. “Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0).” Vicksburg, Mississippi. https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p266001coll1/id/7613. ———. 2020. “National Wetland Plant List, Great Plains.” ———. Jurisdictional Determination. 2022. “SUBJECT: Approved Jurisdictional Determination – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road, Larimer County, Colorado, Corps File No. NWO-2018- 01605-DEN,” August 5, 2022. ERO Resources. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. “Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin.” Agriculture Handbook 296. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture. ———. 2024a. “PLANTS Database.” Database. PLANTS Database. 2024. https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home. ———. 2024b. “Web Soil Survey.” 2024. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule to List the Plant Spiranthes Diluvialis (Ute Ladies’-Tresses) as a Threatened Species.” Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17 57 (12): 2048–54. ———. 1992b. “Interim Survey Requirements for Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid (Spiranthes Diluvialis).” Interim Survey Requirements. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/SPDI_interimSurveyRequirements_1992_re vised%202017.pdf. ———. 2003. “Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum.” https://www.fws.gov/media/mbpm-1-migratory- bird-permit-mbp-memorandum-series. ———. 2017. “Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis Subflavus) Species Profile.” FWS.Gov. December 20, 2017. https://www.fws.gov/species/tricolored-bat-perimyotis-subflavus. ———. 2019. “Monarch Butterfly Migration.” ———. 2024. “Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Resource List.” 2024. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 18 ERO Resources Corporation Veilleux, Jacques Pierre, and Sherry L. Veilleux. 2004. “Intra-Annual and Interannual Fidelity to Summer Roost Areas by Female Eastern Pipistrelles, Pipistrellus Subflavus.” The American Midland Naturalist 152 (1): 196–200. Weber, William A., Ronald C. Wittmann, and Linna Weber Müller-Wille. 2012. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope, Fourth Edition. A Field Guide to the Vascular Plants. University Press of Colorado. White, Gary, and Trey Shenk. 2000. “Relationship of Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Densities to Vegetation Cover.” Colorado Division of Wildlife. Montava Property Phase D Ecological Characterization Memorandum Photo Log March 29, 2024 Photo 1 Ͳ &ĞƐƚƵĐĂ ŵŽŶŽĐƵůƚƵƌĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĨŽƌĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ ĂŶĚ ĂĐƟǀĞ ĂŐƌŝĐƵůƚƵƌĂů ůĂŶĚ ǁŝƚŚ ƉŝǀŽƚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘ sŝĞǁ ŝƐ ŶŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚ͘ Photo 2 Ͳ EŽŶŶĂƟǀĞ ŐƌĂƐƐůĂŶĚ ĚŽŵŝŶĂƚĞĚ ďLJ ƐŵŽŽƚŚ ďƌŽŵĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƐŽƵƚŚĞĂƐƚĞƌŶ ƉŽƌƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ĂƌĞĂ͘ sŝĞǁ ŝƐ ƐŽƵƚŚĞĂƐƚ͘ Montava Property Phase D Ecological Characterization Memorandum Photo Log March 29, 2024 Photo 3 Ͳ MŝdžĞĚ ŐƌĂƐƐůĂŶĚ ĂƌĞĂ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ǁĞƐƚĞƌŶ ƉŽƌƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ĂƌĞĂ͘ sŝĞǁ ŝƐ ĞĂƐƚ͘ Photo 4 Ͳ MŝdžĞĚ ŐƌĂƐƐůĂŶĚ ĂƌĞĂ ǁŝƚŚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶ Ğůŵ ;Ulmus pumillaͿ ĂŶĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶ ŽůŝǀĞ ;Elaeagnus angustifolia) stands ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘ sŝĞǁ ŝƐ ƐŽƵƚŚ͘ Montava Property Phase D Ecological Characterization Memorandum Photo Log March 29, 2024 Photo 5 Ͳ tĞƚůĂŶĚ ƐǁĂůĞ ŇŽǁƐ ŝŶƚŽ ĐĞŶƚƌĂů ƉŽƌƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ĂƌĞĂ, ĚŽŵŝŶĂƚĞĚ ďLJ ĐĂƩĂŝů ;dLJƉŚĂ ƐƉ͘Ϳ͘ sŝĞǁ ŝƐ ƐŽƵƚŚ͘ Photo 6 Ͳ tĞƚůĂŶĚ ƐǁĂůĞ ŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚ ďLJ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͘ sŝĞǁ ŝƐ ŶŽƌƚŚ͘ Montava Property Phase D Ecological Characterization Memorandum Photo Log March 29, 2024 Photo 7 Ͳ CŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ ŽĐĐƵƌƌŝŶŐ ŝŶ ǁĞƐƚĞƌŶ ƉŽƌƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ĂƌĞĂ͘ sŝĞǁ ŝƐ ǁĞƐƚ͘ Photo 8 Ͳ DĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ ĂƌĞĂ ŝŶ ĐĞŶƚƌĂů ƉŽƌƟŽŶ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ĂƌĞĂ͘ sŝĞǁ ŝƐ ĞĂƐƚ͘ US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Montava Development Fort Collins/Larimer 4/12/2018 City of Fort Collins CO DP4 M. Worah, A. Sunshine Section 32, T8N, R68W; 6th PM G 40.617290 105.024886 NAD83 Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes none NN N NN N Ditch/swale. 30' x 30' 0 1 1 15' x 15'100 0 75 75 0 0 2 6 5' x 5'5 20 Cirsium arvense Asclepias sp. 75 5 2 82 Y N N OBL FACU FAC 0 0 82 101 1.23 018 Typha latifolia US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP4 Soils assumed based on obligate species and inundation. 2 0 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACí): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Montava Development Fort Collins/Larimer 4/12/2018 City of Fort Collins CO DP5 M. Worah, A. Sunshine Section 32, T8N, R68W; 6th PM G 40.617304 105.024873 NAD83 Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes none NN N NN N Upland terrace. 30' x 30' 0 0 1 15' x 15'0 0 0 0 0 0 5 15 5' x 5'75 300 Pascopyrum smithii Asclepias sp. Bromus inermis 5 70 5 15 95 N Y N N FACU FACU FAC UPL 15 75 95 390 4.11 05 Cirsium arvense US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP5 Did not dig based on upland vegetation. No indicators observed. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix C Commonly Occurring Plant Species in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator Status* Herbaceous Alkali sacaton Sporobolus airoides Facultative Blue fescue Festuca glauca Upland Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Facultative Upland Cattail Typha L. Obligate Wetland Common sunflower Helianthus annuus Facultative Upland Curly dock Rumex crispus Facultative Horseweed Erigeron canadensis Facultative Upland Kochia Kochia brassica Upland Milkweed Asclepias L. Facultative Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa Upland Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Facultative Upland Saltgrass Distichlis spicata Facultative Wetland Siberian elm Ulmus pumilla Upland Smooth brome Bromus inermis Upland *Obligate Wetland—Occurs with an estimated 99% probability in wetlands. Facultative Wetland—Estimated 67%–99% probability of occurrence in wetlands. Facultative—Equally likely to occur in wetlands and nonwetlands (34%–66% probability). Facultative Upland—67%–99% probability in nonwetlands, 1%–33% in wetlands. Upland—>99% probability in nonwetlands in this region. Source: Ackerfield 2015; Corps 2020; USDA, NRCS 2024a; Weber et al. 2012. Ecological Characterization Study Montava Property Phase D – Mountain Vista Drive and Giddings Road Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #6965 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix D Natural Habitat and Features Potentially Occurring in or Near the Project Area Special Feature Present (Y/N) Comment Noxious weeds Y Canada thistle and Russian olive (List B); and field bindweed and Siberian elm (List C). Jurisdic�onal and nonjurisdic�onal wetlands Y Nonjurisdic�onal wetland swale in the northwest por�on of the project area. Number 8 Outlet Ditch and its associated wetlands lie just outside the western border of the project area. Significant remnants of na�ve plant communi�es N Poten�al habitats and known loca�ons of rare, threatened, or endangered plant species N Poten�al habitats and known loca�ons of rare, threatened, or endangered species of wildlife Y Poten�al for tricolored bat habitat. Tricolored bat is currently a proposed endangered species under the ESA and is listed as a Tier 2 species under the Colorado State Wildlife Ac�on Plan. Raptor habitat features, including nest sites, communal roost sites, and key concentra�on areas N Concentra�on areas for nes�ng and migratory shorebirds and waterfowl N Migratory songbird concentra�on areas N Key nes�ng areas for grassland birds N Fox and coyote dens N Mule deer winter concentra�on areas N Prairie dog colonies 1 acre or greater in size N