Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Reports - Ecological - 08/11/2024
Denver • Durango • Grand Junction • Idaho www.eroresources.com Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for— Cottonwood Land and Farms, LLC P.O. Box 229 Boulder, Colorado 80306 Prepared by— ERO Resources Corporation 1626 Cole Boulevard, Suite 100 Lakewood, Colorado 80401 (303)830-1188 ERO Project #24-115 August 11, 2024 Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 i ERO Resources Corporation Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ iii Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Area Location ............................................................................................................... 2 Project Background and Environmental Baseline ..................................................................... 2 Summary of Ecological Setting ................................................................................................. 5 Vegetation Communities ......................................................................................................... 6 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) .............................................................................. 6 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Jurisdictional Assessment ................................................................................................................ 9 Project Area Conditions ................................................................................................................... 9 Wetland Functions ......................................................................................................................... 14 ERO Assessment of Jurisdiction ..................................................................................................... 15 Potential Impacts and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 15 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ................................................................... 16 Species Eliminated from Further Consideration ............................................................................ 17 Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat ............................................................................... 18 Other Species of Concern ....................................................................................................... 22 Migratory Birds .............................................................................................................................. 22 Bald Eagle ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Migratory Waterbird (waterfowl and shorebirds) Concentration Areas. ................................. 27 Key Terrestrial Habitat ........................................................................................................... 28 High Priority Habitat and Big Game ....................................................................................... 30 Aquatic Native Species Conservation Waters (ANSCW) ......................................................... 30 Other Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 30 Views ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Impacts and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 31 Wetland Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 32 References ............................................................................................................................. 33 Tables Table 1. Wetland and open water jurisdictional features identified in the project area. ............. 14 Table 2. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in the project area. ............................................................................................................................ 16 Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map. ..................................................................................................................... 3 Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 ii ERO Resources Corporation Figure 2. Existing Conditions. ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. Raptor Nests and High Priority Habitat. .......................................................................... 26 Figure 4. Extent of Recent Disturbance ......................................................................................... 29 Appendices Appendix A Photo Log Appendix B Commonly Occurring Plant Species in the Project Area Appendix C Routine Wetland Determination Datasheets Appendix D Request and Response for Approved Jurisdictional Determination for the Southwestern Portion of the East Rigden Property in Fort Collins, Larimer County Appendix E Strauss Lake Master Plan Appendix F Response from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the East Rigden Eagle Protection Plan for Debris Management. Appendix G Natural Habitat and Features Potentially Occurring in or near the Project Area Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 iii ERO Resources Corporation Executive Summary Cottonwood Land and Farms, LLC retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide an Ecological Characterization Study for the annexation and development of 185 acres (project) located at the northeast corner of East Horsetooth Road and Ziegler Road (parcel numbers 8728000003 and 8728000009) in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (project area). ERO assessed the project area for potential wetlands and waters of the U.S. (WOTUS), 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 in the project area 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 Cottonwood Land and Farms, LLC. 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. (WOTUS) – ERO evaluated all wetlands on the project area according to federal, state (House Bill (HB) 24-1379), and local regulations and guidelines. During the 2024 site visits, one pond (Flatiron Pond) and four ditches that support wetlands were observed in the project area, including Rigden Farm Outfall, the Foothills Channel Outfall (FCO), Boxelder Ditch, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet as well as five additional wetland areas (Wetland 1 through Wetland 5) in the southwestern portion of the project area. The wetlands in the project area are low functioning due their location along ditches and a man-made gravel pond and their adjacency to agricultural fields and other human development. Based on observations during the 2024 site visits and a review of aerial imagery, Flatiron Pond appears to have been constructed in uplands and lacks a downstream surface connection to a known WOTUS. As such, ERO believes this feature would be considered nonjurisdictional. Rigden Farm Outfall, the FCO, Boxelder Ditch, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet appear to have a direct hydrologic surface connection to the Cache la Poudre River; therefore, these features would likely be considered a WOTUS regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Based on an approved jurisdictional determination from the Corps provided on December 13, 2021, for Wetland 1 through Wetland 5, Wetland 3 and Wetland 4 were determined to abut and discharge into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal and are, therefore, jurisdictional WOTUS. Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 are livestock ponds excavated in uplands, and Wetland 5 occurs on a hillslope. Since these features do not have a surface connection to Wetland 3 or Wetland 4 or the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal, they are not jurisdictional WOTUS. If any work is planned in potential WOTUS areas, including Flatiron Pond or Rigden Farm Outfall, the FCO, Boxelder Ditch, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet or their abutting wetlands, a jurisdictional determination should be requested, and if necessary, a Section 404 permit may be required from the Corps for the placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands or below the ordinary high water mark of jurisdictional features. . After December 31, 2025, a dredge and fill be permit may be required by the state of Colorado.1 If no work is planned in potentially jurisdictional areas, then no regulatory action (federal or state) would be necessary. 1 House Bill 24-1379 was enacted on May 29, 2024. The act requires the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to adopt rules by December 31, 2025 to implement a state dredge and fill discharge permit program and requires the CDPHE Division of Administration to administer and enforce permits for activities that will result in discharges of dredged or fill material into state waters. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 iv ERO Resources Corporation The project design incorporates Fort Collins Land Use Code wetland and canal buffer recommendations to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to all wetlands to the extent practicable. Wetland impacts that are unavoidable would be largely mitigated with constructed stormwater wetlands for both water quality and wildlife habitat functions. The proposed wetland enhancements would likely result in higher functioning wetlands than those proposed to be impacted because they would be planted with native seed mixes with more species diversity than is currently present, and planting native trees and shrubs would be expected to substantially improve structural diversity and overall existing conditions. Threatened and Endangered Species – ERO believes the project area does not contain suitable habitat for any federally listed threatened or endangered species and, therefore, no action is necessary. A viable population of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is unlikely to exist in the project area because it lacks riparian shrub habitat and because of overall habitat fragmentation and modifications in and adjacent to the project area. It is unlikely that eastern black rail is present in the project area given the minimal number of recent sightings in Colorado, north of Denver, and lack of expansive cattail wetland habitat that would be considered suitable for this species. No suitable (contiguous) forested tricolored bat habitat is present in the project area; however, the pockets of trees in the project area could provide potential roosting habitat for the tricolored bat. Because of the lack of suitable habitat in the project area, it is unlikely that the project would result in significant effects on tricolored bat. The project area is not conducive to the establishment of Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (ULTO) because the wetlands in the project area are dominated by species not commonly associated with ULTO and because of an abrupt change from wetland to upland species. For these reasons, Migratory Birds – The project area supports a few individual or small groves of nonnative trees, such as white poplar and Russian olive, with sparsely scattered native cottonwoods that provide suitable habitat for nesting songbirds. The nonnative agricultural lands provide limited habitat for grassland birds, and very few grassland species were observed during field surveys conducted in May 2024. The pond and canals and associated wetlands provide narrow strips of wetland and open water habitat for nesting scrub-shrub wetland species such as song sparrow and breeding, brood-rearing, and foraging habitat for waterfowl species. Waterfowl likely nest in the nonnative croplands near these water sources prior to hay harvesting. Canada geese and mallard ducks with broods were observed in all the canals during the 2024 site visits. Bald Eagle - The northern portion of the project area is within the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recommended 0.5 mile buffers and nest site High Priority Habitat (HPH) for the new nest site to the north. Consultation with CPW in 2009 and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in 2024 acknowledged that eagles nesting in this vicinity have demonstrated tolerance to human disturbance for approximately 15 years. Based on the eagle tolerance, CPW accepted disturbance buffers that were truncated at the railroad line and the Service concurred that the 660-foot disturbance buffers were appropriate for these nest sites Migratory Waterbird Concentration Area - The project area is near to the Cache la Poudre River corridor, an acknowledged waterbird concentration area. However, the project area is disjunct and fragmented from the river corridor by an open and approved construction aggregate permit area and active railroad. Other portions of the project area are restored aggregate mine currently used for hay production on most of the project area which has had insufficient time to develop the habitat components needed for waterbird concentrations. Three ditches and canals traverse the project area. These provide narrow ribbons of habitat for waterbirds. Most of these canals will be buffered as defined in the local land use code, maintaining the existing ribbons of habitat and contributing to connectivity and function of the nearby Cache la Poudre River waterbird concentration area. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 v ERO Resources Corporation Key Terrestrial Habitat - Riparian woodland and shrub habitat occurs extensively along the Cache la Poudre River, northeast of the project area. Riparian woodland and shrub habitat is essentially non-existent on the project site due to the extensive construction aggregate mining and reservoir creation conducted by the City of Fort Collins occurring as recently as 10 years ago. The project area is outside of the river floodplain and lacks rivers, streams and other hydrological sources necessary to support this habitat. Other Wildlife – In 2021, CPW released a HPH table that identifies species and habitats as well as recommendations to avoid and minimize impacts on wildlife from land use development (CPW 2021). ERO reviewed data from CPW map databases and determined that two HPH areas overlap the project area, including a Bald Eagle Active Nest Site HPH and an Aquatic Native Species Conservation Waters (ANSCW) HPH (CPW 2021). The buffer zone of the pond in the Topminnow Natural Area, south of the project area, an ANSCW, extends into the southern portion of the project area. Based on observations during the 2024 site visits, the ANSCW buffer between the pond in the Topminnow Natural Area and the project area has been heavily modified by human activities and infrastructure, including East Horsetooth Road. As such, ERO believes activities in the project area would not affect the pond in the Topminnow Natural Area as an ANSCW. The project area is also in the overall range of mule deer, white-tailed deer, mountain lion, and black bear. The Cache la Poudre River and its riparian corridor are northeast 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 residential developments to the east and south and because it has been subject to frequent and intensive modifications by human activities over several decades, including agricultural activities, and a lack of vegetation structure, the project area does not provide high quality or significant habitat for wildlife. Any wildlife using the project area has likely become adapted to human disturbance due to the proximity of Interstate 25 and nearby dense development. Views – The area surrounding the project area is largely undeveloped and surrounded, mainly, by agricultural fields to the north, east, and south and residential development to the west. 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 except for the far southeast corner where views are obstructed by topographic relief and the adjacent residential developments. Rigden Reservoir (owned and operated by the City of Fort Collins) is east of the project area and currently visible from most locations in the project area. Impacts and Recommendations – The project area contains some grassland and wetland vegetation communities that provide habitat for wildlife and migratory birds; however, these areas are scattered sporadically between agricultural fields, they are dominated by nonnative species, and they have been frequently modified over the last 60 years, and, therefore, do not provide high-quality wildlife habitat. Based on the development plans, the proposed project would potentially impact a total of approximately 0.16 acres on Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and Wetland 5 (together) in the southwestern portion of the project area. As part of the development, small channels or swales and detention facilities that integrate wetlands for water quality would be incorporated into the overall landscape plan. These drainages and detention ponds provide opportunities to establish habitat for wildlife and serve as wildlife passages through the project area. These areas also provide opportunities for onsite wetland mitigation and enhancement (if necessary), in addition to the shoreline around Flatiron Pond. Onsite wetland enhancements would likely result in higher functioning wetlands than those that are proposed to be impacted by the project because they would be planted with native seed mixes with more diversity than is currently present and would have improved structure by planting native trees and shrubs. ERO Project #24-115 1 ERO Resources Corporation Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Multi-Use NeighborhoodResidential Development Fort Collins, Colorado August 11, 2024 Introduction Consistent with the requirements of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, Cottonwood Land and Farms, LLC retained ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) to provide an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) the annexation and development of 185 acres (project) located at the northeast corner of East Horsetooth Road and Ziegler Road (parcel numbers 8728000003 and 8728000009) in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (project area; Figure 1). On May 3, May 11, and June 11, 2024, Emma Clary and Josh Dresen with ERO visited the project area to evaluate potential natural resources (2024 site visits). ERO also conducted a reconnaissance level evaluation of environmental resources within a 1,000 foot buffer of the project area. 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 be affected by the project. This ECS provides information on existing site conditions and resources as well as current regulatory requirements related to those resources. The landowner or project proponent is responsible for obtaining any applicable or required federal, state, and local permits necessary to authorize 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: • The wildlife use of the area showing the species of wildlife using the project area, the times or seasons that the project area is used by those species, and the “value” (meaning feeding, watering, cover, nesting, roosting, and perching) that the project area provides for these wildlife species; • The boundary of wetlands in the project area and a description of the ecological functions and characteristics provided by those wetlands; • Any prominent views from or across the project area; • The pattern, species, and location of any significant native trees and other native vegetation in the project area; • The bank, shoreline, and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water in the project area; • Areas inhabited by or frequently used by sensitive and specially valued species; Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 2 ERO Resources Corporation • Special habitat features; • Wildlife movement corridors; • The general ecological functions provided by the project area and its features; • Any issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological character of the project area; and • Any measures needed to mitigate the projected adverse impacts of the project on natural habitats and features. In addition to the information gathered during the 2024 site visits, wildlife and natural resource information was obtained from existing sources such as aerial photography, the Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) National Wetlands Inventory database, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) map databases, and other sources (Google, Inc. 2024; Natural Diversity Information Source 2021; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2024b; Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2024; U.S. Geological Survey 2024). Project Area Location The project area is in Section 28, Township 7 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 498561mE, 4488034mN, Zone 13 North. The longitude/latitude of the project area is 105.016716°W/40.5403060°N. The elevation of the project area is approximately 4,820 to about 4,920 feet above sea level. Photo points are shown on Figure 2, and the photo log is included in Appendix A. Project Background and Environmental Baseline ERO conducted a natural resources assessment for the center portion of the project area in 2015, and, in 2021, ERO conducted a natural resources assessment and wetland delineation of the southwest portion of the project area (2021 site visit) and submitted the report to Cottonwood Land and Farms, LLC (ERO 2021a) and a jurisdictional determination request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (ERO 2021). On December 13, 2021, the Corps provided an approved jurisdictional determination request (Corps 2021), which is described in more detail in the Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) section below. Additionally, ERO conducted an ecological evaluation of the property directly northeast of the project area for Cottonwood Land and Farms, LLC in 2009 and 2023 and prepared an Avian Management Plan and an Avian Management Plan update (ERO 2023), and an Eagle Protection Plan for Debris Management (ERO 2024) to the Service on February 1, 2024. The Avian Management Plan and Eagle Protection Plan for Debris Management are summarized in the Migratory Birds and Bald Eagle sections below. Pond 0 C Prospect Rd OI i= V> I lene Ct eadows East Timberline Village 0 � e � � W C an1ield Ct't F Midpoint Or o" l �$; E Drake Rd � 0 Limon Or� _l Q C .,,. . • ,,? I C�ster Dr Pinecone Fort Collins Sr High .,, � CirS C ·•0. V> Liberty Comm::in Elerrnntal) Cotbnwood Hon w N.Jtural Area M,ugans•r """" Fwspact Pond-i Natural Areu Pehcan Pbod William Neal Pkwy e,oal Bank Or Dakota. Ridge 0 1' e...,Q"-i WU/ow o e !? o6910neo, .. - Slade St "' � \ t 0 � .be,clleron Dr w.,�-5t00e Ridge "'0.,� � "'>�M�l'ol)�Q' E Horsetooth -R:d Af\te\ope Rd �'3p,\\ Rd App\e\on Ct +.od\a'f..R<:1 Bison Rd �- English � R:irchPaOI. For llins English Ranch RedbumO� ===i==<==�\===-==1 ',' Windsor • d own Environmental l•,rrnng Cenwr Mi chelle Ln Q Mesa Verqc,, �0-� C-,nyon st Woo di :ind Park Grand Teton Pl Hidden Pond Or Strauss Lakes Residential Development Project Section 28, T7N, R68W; 6th PM UTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 498561mE, 4488034mN Longitude 105.016716°W, Latitude 40.543060°N USGS Fort Collins, CO Quadrangle Running Deer Natural Ar.,a Topmmoow l\bturalArea Lar imer County, Colorado a 1,000 2,000 Feet E Prospe Mariah Ln Chinook Ln 1-2 Pond Snapper Pond Arapaho Ben:l N:lturalArea Beaver Pond Fort Collm1 .,,.dfeOr m Stable Ln E-Harmo'!)' .fut C J 2 N A Figure 1 Vicinity Map Prepared for: Cottonwood Land and Farms, LLC File: 24-115 Figures.aprx(IS) June 5, 2024 ERO ERO Resources Corp. Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright© 2023 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. ;;; Rigd e n Fa r m Ou t f all Boxe ld er Dit c h Fo s si l C re e k R e se r v oi r In l e t FCO Wetlands consistent with 2021 report Boxelder Ditch Wetlands Boxelder Ditch Wetlands DP1 DP4 DP9 DP8 P7 P4 P9 P6 P8 P1 P2 P14 P13 P5 P10 P11 P12 P3 Figure 2 Existing Conditions 0 660330 Feet Image Source: Google Earth©, May 22, 2023 Photo Point OHWM (5.58 ac) Wetland (2.91 ac) Open Water (6.84 ac) Agricultural Land Non-Native Upland Nonnative Tree Stand Developed Project Area Prepared for:Cottonwood Land And Farms, LLC File: 24-115 Figures.aprx (IS) August 7, 2024 Pa t h : C : \ U s e r s \ i s h a r k e y \ D o c u m e n t s \ A r c G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 2 4 - 1 1 5 \ 2 4 - 1 1 5 F i g u r e s \ 2 4 - 1 1 5 F i g u r e s . a p r x Strauss Lakes Residential Development Project Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 5 ERO Resources Corporation The project area has been continually influenced by human activities for more than 65 years (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 2024). The entire project area has been impacted intensively and to varying degrees by construction aggregate (sand and gravel) mining and agricultural activities. The property was first permitted by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for sand and gravel mining in 1979 under Permit No. M-1979-097. Since that time, mining and reclamation activities have been ongoing for more than 40 years. Railroad tracks operated by OmniTRAX bisect the northern project area boundary. Mine site reclamation work north of the railroad tracks was conducted as recently as the fall 2008 by Lafarge, while the City of Fort Collins mined and reclaimed property immediately adjacent to the project as a water storage reservoir starting in 2015 (and later concluded). Other activities in the vicinity of the project area include regular train traffic on the nearby OmniTRAX railroad tracks, truck and human activity at the Box Elder Water and Sanitation District’s (District) water treatment facility, local traffic and residential development west and south of the project area, and traffic on Interstate 25 (I-25), east of the project area. This report focuses on the project area shown in Figure 1 and provides an updated assessment of the project area including the identification of natural and wildlife resources that may be impacted by development of the project area and any significant changes in natural resources since the previous assessments. 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 days. 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 (hence the historical sand and gravel mining activity on and near the project area). 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. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 6 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 man-made lakes and gravel pits. The entire project area is in the Cache la Poudre alluvial plain, which contains large deposits of sand and gravel that have been actively mined for more than 40 years. Vegetation Communities The project area is surrounded by undeveloped agricultural land and previously mined sand and gravel ponds to the north, east, and south and residential development to the west. A railroad and an unnamed ditch (Rigden Farm Outfall) are on the northeastern boundary of the project area; Ziegler Road is the western boundary, and East County Road 40 is the southern boundary (Figure 2). The primary vegetation communities in the project area consist of active agricultural land (Photo 1), nonnative uplands (Photo 2 and Photo 3), and wetlands and open water areas associated with Rigden Farm Outfall (Photo 4), the FCO (Photo 5), Flatiron Pond (Photo 6), Boxelder Ditch (Photo 7 and Photo 8), the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet (Photo 9), and small wetland pockets (Wetland 1 through Wetland 5) (Photo 10 through Photo 12). The wetlands and open water areas are discussed in detail in the Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) section of this report. Additionally, a small nonnative tree stand dominated by white poplar (Populus alba), an introduced upland species, is adjacent to Zeigler Road in the far southeastern portion of the project area (Figure 2; Photo 3). Agricultural lands in the project area include monocultures of basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus) and alfalfa (Medicago sp.). The nonnative uplands consist of grasslands dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis), kochia (Kochia scoparia), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), alfalfa, rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and Russian thistle (Salsola kali), with some curly dock (Rumex crispus), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense; a Lits B noxious weed), and bird's-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus). A list of commonly occurring plant species in the Project Area is provided in Appendix B. Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) Background The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) protects the chemical, physical, and biological quality of WOTUS. The United States Army Corps’ (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 deemed to be “jurisdictional” 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 revised and/or new administrative rules promulgated by changing United States presidential administrations. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 7 ERO Resources Corporation On August 29, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Corps announced a final rule amending the 2023 definition of “waters of the U.S.” to conform with the United States Supreme Court’s ruling Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023). The amended rule reduced the jurisdiction of the CWA over wetlands that are adjacent to bodies of water that do not have a continuous surface water connection to other known WOTUS, as well as to streams that are continuously flowing or relatively permanent. The amended rule removed the “significant nexus” standard that was created under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). It also removes interstate wetlands from the definition of WOTUS and revises the definition of “adjacent” to mean “having a continuous surface [water] connection.” Wetlands that do not have a contiguous surface water connection to a traditionally navigable water or tributary are no longer jurisdictional, thus meaning that, for example, ephemeral streams that are permanently inundated with water are not deemed to be jurisdictional. Potential rulings and guidance in the future could affect the conclusion of this report regarding the jurisdictional status of waters and wetlands in the project area under Section 404. While ERO may provide its opinion on the likely jurisdictional status of wetlands and waters, the Corps is responsible for making any final determination of jurisdiction based on the current rules, guidance and, ultimately, case law. State Dredge and Fill Program On May 6, 2024, the Colorado Legislature enacted House Bill (HB) 24-1379 which creates a dredge and fill permit program for the State of Colorado. The program will apply to all state waters, including wetlands, that are not otherwise protected under the federal Section 404 program. If a Section 404 permit is obtained from the Corps, or the project has a valid approved jurisdictional determination from the Corps that was issued prior to May 25, 2023, then authorization from the State will not be required.2 The program will require authorization (permit) from the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for the placement of dredge or fill material into state waters where the wetlands or open water have been determined to not be WOTUS. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) has until December 31, 2025, to complete rulemaking necessary to create a general and individual permit program similar to the 404 permit program. On July 6, 2023, the WQCD issued Clean Water Policy 17, titled “Enforcement of Unpermitted Discharges of Dredged and Fill Material Into State Waters” (July 6, 2023). If a project is impacting state waters that are no longer considered WOTUS requiring a CWA Section 404 permit, Clean Water Policy 17 applies. The policy allows for enforcement discretion if permanent impacts on state waters are under 0.10 acre on wetlands or 0.03 acre on streambeds and notification is submitted to CDPHE. If impacts exceed these thresholds, HB 24-1379 states WQCD may issue temporary authorizations for the activities if it would result in net increases in the function and services of state waters (only to stream impacts) or the applicant shows proof of purchase of mitigation bank credits that meet or exceed the compensatory 2 See generally, Section 25-8-205.1(8)(b), C.R.S. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 8 ERO Resources Corporation mitigation requirements that would have been applicable under the federal Nationwide Permits or state Regional General Permits programs. Beginning January 1, 2025, CDPHE will use existing federal Nationwide Permits and state Regional General Permits for compliance with impacts on state waters until rulemaking is completed by the WQCC and WQCD has issued general authorizations. Applicants may submit a preconstruction notification, as required under the Section 404 program, for authorization. If compensatory mitigation is required, the applicant will be required to obtain temporary authorization from WQCD, as discussed above. Methods During the 2024 site visits, ERO surveyed the project area for wetlands, streambeds, and open waters. A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation was conducted during the June 11, 2024, site visit, and, additionally, a formal wetland delineation was conducted in the southwestern portion of the project area in during the 2021 site visit (ERO 2021); the boundaries and character of the wetlands in this area were verified during the 2024 site visits. Prior to the 2024 site visits, ERO reviewed USGS topographic quadrangle 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 2021 site visit and 2024 site visits. During the 2021 site visit and 2024 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 ERO used methods specified 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 C). 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). 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. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 9 ERO Resources Corporation 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 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. Jurisdictional Assessment To assist the Corps in making a preliminary jurisdictional determination, ERO reviewed the proximity and potential surface water connection of wetlands and water features to known jurisdictional WOTUS using aerial photo interpretation, landowner information, and information from the wetland survey. Using the amended rule the Corps announced in August 2023 (described in the Background section), wetlands that do not have a contiguous surface water connection to a jurisdictional traditionally navigable water or tributary are not considered to be jurisdictional; similarly, ephemeral streams that do not have relatively permanent water are jurisdictional. Wetlands that have a contiguous surface water connection and waters that have relatively permanent water and a contiguous surface connection to the Cache la Poudre River, a known jurisdictional water, may be found by the Corps to be jurisdictional. Project Area Conditions Streams and Open Water Areas Prior to the 2024 site visits, ERO reviewed USGS topographic quadrangle maps, the 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 map and NHD show an unnamed pond, Boxelder Ditch, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch (FCRID) as occurring in the project area. During the 2024 site visits, one pond (Flatiron Pond) and four ditches were observed in the project area, including Rigden Farm Outfall, the FCO, Boxelder Ditch, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet (Figure 2). The following sections of the ECS contain information on potential surface water connections of wetlands and other waters in the project area. Table 1 provides a summary of the mapped streams, open waters, wetlands, and acreage. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 10 ERO Resources Corporation Flatiron Pond Flatiron Pond occurs in the northern portion of the project area and appears to be a sand/gravel pit excavated in uplands. Based on the NHD and observations during the 2024 site visits, Flatiron Pond lacks a surface connection to a known WOTUS. Water was present in the pond at the time of the 2024 site visits, and vegetation was interspersed around the pond, mostly in narrow fringes. Scattered Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia; a List B noxious weed) trees are established along the western bank. Rigden Farm Outfall Rigden Farm Outfall runs along the far northeastern boundary of the project area, flowing northwest to southeast. The ditch is approximately 8 feet wide and largely consists of wetland vegetation dominated by narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) with sandbar willows (Salix exigua) along the banks. The ditch has a defined channel and bed and bank and contained flowing water at the time of the 2024 site visits. Rigden Farm Outfall appears to flow into the Cache la Poudre River about 1 mile southeast of the project area. Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch (FCRID) The FCRID occurs along the western boundary of the project area, generally flowing from north to south-southeast. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet is shown as a canal/ditch on the NHD. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet is approximately 30 feet wide and has a defined channel, bed, and bank and contained flowing water at the time of the 2021 site visit and 2024 site visits. The inlet has relatively steep earthen walls for most of its length and concrete walls under East Horsetooth Road. During the 2024 site visits, wetlands were observed in about 2-foot-wide fringes along both banks of the ditch. Based on aerial imagery and the NHD, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet flows into the Fossil Creek Reservoir, approximately 3.15 miles south of the project area. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Outlet has a direct hydrologic surface connection to the Cache la Poudre. Foothills Channel; Outfall (FCO) The FCO runs along the southern boundary of the project area, just north of East Horsetooth Road (Figure 2). This ditch is approximately 30 feet wide and appears to be supported by agricultural runoff and stormwater flows. The primary purpose of the FCO is to convey excess flows from the FCRID to the Cache La Pouder River. The FCO did not contain an OHWM or flowing water at the time of the 2024 site visits but supported cattail wetlands throughout its reach in the project area. The FCO appears to have a hydrologic surface connection to the Cache la Poudre River about 0.50 miles east of the project area, although no flowing water was observed in the channel at the time of the 2024 site visits. Boxelder Ditch Boxelder Ditch bisects the northernmost portion of the project area, then occurs along the eastern boundary of the project area, flowing from northwest to southeast. The Boxelder Ditch is shown as a canal/ditch on the NHD. Boxelder Ditch is approximately 15 feet wide and has a defined channel, bed, and bank and contained flowing water at the time of the 2024 site visits. The Boxelder Ditch also has steep walls for most of its length in the project area but has some areas with low terraces that support Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 11 ERO Resources Corporation wetland vegetation. During the 2024 site visits, a majority of the wetlands were observed in approximately 2-foot-wide fringes along both sides of the ditch channel, with a section of the north end extending to 4 feet wide on the west side. The Boxelder Ditch appears to have a direct surface connection to the Cache la Poudre River, 3.10 miles to the south. Wetlands During the 2021 site visit and 2024 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. Each data point (DP) was given a label that corresponds to a location shown on Figure 2 and routine wetland determination forms in Appendix C. Wetlands associated with Ditches and Ponds Vegetation Emergent wetlands were delineated in the project area along Flatiron Pond, the Boxelder Ditch, and the FCO, which were representative of the wetlands observed in fringes along Rigden Farm Outfall and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet. DPs were collected in the wetlands and in the adjacent uplands. The characteristics of the remaining ditches, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet and Rigden Farms Outfall. Emergent wetlands were delineated in the project area on the east side of Flatiron Pond and were dominated by spotted ladysthumb (Persicaria maculosa) and oakleaf goosefoot (Chenopodium glaucum). The wetlands along the ditches were dominated by narrowleaf cattail and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). At DP1, DP3, and DP8, the vegetation passed the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. DP2, DP4, and DP9 consisted primarily of upland species and did not meet the requirements for hydrophytic vegetation. Soils Soil types in the project area were identified by the NRCS Soil Surveys for Larimer County, Colorado. The NRCS mapped the primary soil association for the wetlands as Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, and Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes (NRCS 2024). Human activity in the project area has altered soils in the area, and, therefore, the soil mapping units may no longer apply. At DP1 and DP2, the soil was extremely rocky; several holes had to be dug to get a profile. Soils at DP1 contained matrix colors of 90 percent 10YR 4/2 and 10 percent 2.5 YR 4/4 in the upper 3 inches with a silty clay and silty texture, respectively. From 3 through 10 inches deep, the soils contained a matrix color of Gley 1 3/N with 5 percent 10YR 5/6 prominent redox concentrations with a silty texture. At DP2, the soils contained a matrix color of 10YR 6/3 with a texture of silty loam in the top 2 inches. A restrictive layer of large rocks was hit at 2 inches deep, preventing further digging. The soils at DP1 met the redox dark surface and redox depressions indicators. At DP3, soils contained a matrix color of 10YR 4/3 in the upper 3 inches with a silty clay loam texture. From 3 through 7 inches deep, the soils contained a matrix color of 10YR 4/3 with 2 percent 10YR 4/4 prominent redox concentrations with a silty clay loam texture. From 7 through 9 inches deep, the soils contained two matrix colors: 75 percent 10YR 2/1 with 3 percent 7.5YR 4/6 prominent redox concentrations and 22 percent 10YR 3/2 with a Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 12 ERO Resources Corporation sandy clay loam texture. At DP4, soils contained a matrix color of 10YR 5/4 with a sandy texture. At DP8, the soils had a mixed matrix color of 30 percent Gley 1 2.5/N and 70 percent 2.5Y 2.5/1 with a mucky texture. Soils at DP8 contained a significant amount of organic matter. No soil pits were dug at DP9 due to the presence of upland vegetation and lack of hydrology. The soils at DP3 met the redox dark surface indicator, and the soils at DP8 met the histol indicator. No hydric soil indicators were observed at DP2, DP4, or DP9. Hydrology Hydrology indicators were observed at DP1, DP3, and DP8. Primary indicators were observed including saturation at DP1, surface water at DP8, and a high water table and saturation at DP3 and DP8. Secondary indicators were observed including visible saturation on aerial imagery at DP8 and geomorphic position and an FAC-Neutral test at both DP3 and DP8. DP2, DP4, and DP9 did not meet any hydrology indicators. Dryland Areas Three DPs (DP5, DP6, and DP7) were collected in and along the southeastern boundary of the project area where a change in composition in the nonnative upland vegetation community occurs (Figure 2; Photo 13 and Photo 14). A slight change in topography and dominance by herbaceous species that are less prevalent in the rest of the nonnative upland vegetation community is present; however, based on observations and data collected during the 2024 site visits, no OHWM or wetlands occur in this area. DP5, DP6, and DP7 are described in detail below. Vegetation At DP5, the vegetation was dominated by western wheatgrass (upland [UPL]) and curly dock (FAC). DP6 was dominated by Canada thistle. DP7 was a combination of both DP5 and DP6, with western wheatgrass, Canada thistle, and curly dock as the dominant species. DP5, DP6, and DP7 did not meet the criteria for any indicators for hydrophytic vegetation. Soils The NRCS mapped the soils in the area as Stoneham loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes (NRCS 2024). Field observations revealed that the soils primarily consisted of silty clay within 12 inches of the soil surface. The soil was dense and rocky, preventing digging further at each DP. At DP5, the soil contained a matrix color of 10YR 4/3 within 8 inches of the soil surface. At DP6, the soil contained a matrix color of 10YR 3/3 within 12 inches of the soil surface. At Dp7, the soil contained a matrix color of 10YR 4/3 within 10 inches of the soil surface. DP5, DP6, and DP7 did not meet any hydric soil indicators. Hydrology No hydrology indicators were observed at DP5, DP6, or DP7. Wetland 1 through Wetland 5 Wetlands 1 through Wetland 5 were delineated during the 2021 site visit, and the conditions and boundaries were verified during the 2024 site visits. DPs were collected in the wetlands and in the Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 13 ERO Resources Corporation adjacent uplands and are described in detail in the approved jurisdictional determination request submitted to the Corps in 2021 (ERO 2021a; Corps 2021; Appendix D). Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 appear to be man-made stock watering ponds and are encircled by berms. A buried pipe connects Wetland 1 and Wetland 2; however, no surface inflow or outflow was observed from Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 during the 2021 site visit or 2024 site visits. Wetland 3, Wetland 4, and Wetland 5 occur along the hill slope in the project area and flow downslope to the east. At the time of the 2021 site visit and 2024 site visits, Wetland 3 contained a narrow OHWM but did not make a visible connection to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet via surface water. A small upland break between Wetland 3 and Wetland 4 is present, and Wetland 4 is connected to wetlands abutting the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet. Wetland 1 through Wetland 5 are described in more detail below. Wetland 5 does not have any surface connections to the nearby wetlands or the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet and appears to dissipate into uplands. The wetland delineated results below are from the 2021 site visit delineation, and the boundaries were updated during the 2024 site visits. Vegetation The dominant species in Wetland 1, Wetland 2, Wetland 4, and Wetland 5 are reed canarygrass, common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens), and smooth brome. The dominant species in Wetland 3 is narrowleaf cattail with some reed canarygrass. The vegetation in the wetlands met the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. The dominant species in the adjacent uplands are smooth brome and western wheatgrass, and less prevalent species include Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and Canada thistle. Soils The NRCS mapped the soils in the area as Larimer-Stoneham complex, 3 to 10 percent slopes (NRCS 2024). Soils in the wetlands met the depleted matrix and the redox dark surface soil indicators. Soils in the uplands adjacent to the wetland areas did not meet any of the hydric soil indicators. Hydrology Hydrology indicators observed in Wetland 1 included a successful FAC-Neutral test, geomorphic position, and saturation on the aerial imagery. Hydrology indicators in Wetland 2 included saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface, a high water table, a successful FAC-Neutral test, geomorphic position, and saturation on the aerial imagery. The hydrology indicators for Wetland 3 and Wetland 4 included surface water, a successful FAC-Neutral test, saturation on the aerial imagery, and geomorphic position. Hydrology indicators in Wetland 5 included a successful FAC-Neutral test and oxidized rhizospheres on living roots. Wetland hydrology was not present in the uplands adjacent to these wetland areas. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 14 ERO Resources Corporation Table 1. Wetland and open water features identified in the project area. Flatiron Pond -105.018631 40.54705811 Palustrine 6.84 Rigden Farm Outfall -105.0179825 40.55053329 N/A - artificial 1.42 FCO -105.0132828 40.53796387 N/A - artificial - Boxelder Ditch -105.0127716 40.54156113 N/A - artificial 1.60 FCRID -105.0190582 40.54153061 N/A - artificial 3.83 Wetland 3 OHWM Palustrine <0.01 Rigden Farm Outfall Wetlands -105.0179825 40.55053329 Palustrine Emergent/ Palustrine Scrub-shrub 0.21 FCO Wetlands -105.0132828 40.53796387 Palustrine Emergent 1.49 Boxelder Ditch Wetlands -105.0128403 40.54164505 Riverine Unknown Perennial 0.39 Fossil Creek Reservoir Wetlands -105.0190277 40.54156113 Riverine Intermittent 0.49 Flatiron Pond Wetlands -105.0186386 40.5471344 Palustrine Aquatic Bed 0.06 Wetland 1 -105.019165 40.5387001 Palustrine Emergent 0.04 Wetland 2 -105.018692 40.53891373 Palustrine Emergent 0.06 Wetland 3 -105.0178146 40.53867722 Palustrine Emergent 0.12 Wetland 4 -105.0173264 40.53876877 Palustrine Emergent <0.01 Wetland 5 -105.0178452 40.53797913 Palustrine Emergent 0.06 Total Streams and Open Water (Acre) 12.42 Total Wetlands (Acre) 2.91 Wetland Functions During the 2024 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 are typically related to water quality, biodiversity, and hydrological and ecological processes. The wetlands in the project area are low functioning due their location along ditches and a man-made gravel pond and their adjacency to agricultural fields and other human development. This results in nutrient runoff into the wetlands from nearby agricultural and developed areas which affects water quality. Additionally, most of the wetlands are dominated by narrowleaf cattail or reed canarygrass and do not contain a high diversity of species or a variety of structures. The wetlands, except for Flatiron Pond and Wetland 5, appear to be supported by managed hydrology associated with irrigation ditch systems and agricultural and impervious surface runoff, not natural surface water or groundwater flows. Although the wetlands in the project area are low functioning, they likely provide some habitat for wildlife or migratory birds and could potentially serve as a wildlife passage through the project area. The development plan proposes to incorporate buffer zones along Rigden Farm Outfall, the FCO, Boxelder Ditch, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet, and Wetland 3 and Wetland 5, except where designated crossings are necessary for transportation and utilities. These crossings would be designed to avoid and minimize disturbance to ecologically sensitive areas as much as possible. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 15 ERO Resources Corporation ERO Assessment of Jurisdiction Based on aerial imagery and the NHD, Flatiron Pond appears to have been constructed in uplands and lacks a downstream surface connection to a known WOTUS. As such, ERO believes this feature would be considered nonjurisdictional. Rigden Farm Outfall, the FCO, Boxelder Ditch, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet appear to have a direct hydrologic surface connection to the Cache la Poudre; therefore, these features would likely be considered jurisdictional by the Corps. Based on the Corps approved jurisdictional determination provided on December 13, 2021, Wetland 3 and Wetland 4 abut and discharge into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal and would likely be considered jurisdictional by the Corps. Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 are livestock ponds excavated down to the water table in uplands but have no surface connection to Wetland 3 or Wetland 4 or the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal and are, therefore, non-jurisdictional. Wetland 5 occurs on a hillslope and has no surface or shallow subsurface connection to Wetland 3 or Wetland 4 or the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal and, therefore, it is non-jurisdictional (ERO 2021b; Corps 2021; Appendix D). Potential Impacts and Recommendations Transportation and utility crossings may be necessary over the Rigden Farm Outfall, the FCO, Boxelder Ditch, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet, and a stormwater outfall is proposed to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet. ERO believes these features and their abutting wetlands are likely jurisdictional and, if work is planned in these areas, a Section 404 permit would likely be required from the Corps for the placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands or below the OHWM. Based on ERO’s understanding of the proposed activities for transportation and utility crossings and the stormwater outfall, these activities would likely fall under one or more Nationwide Permits. Wetland mitigation would be required by the Corps for permanent impacts on wetlands greater than 0.10 acre. Except for the proposed activities discussed above, no disturbances are proposed to occur within 50 feet of Rigden Farm Outfall, the FCO, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet to protect their ecological character (Appendix E). A conveyance swale and maintenance trail are proposed parallel to the southwest side of Boxelder Ditch. While these features would fall within the 50-foot buffer, the swale would reduce nutrient loads by intercepting runoff from adjacent agricultural and human developed areas and would create a parallel corridor for use by wildlife or migratory birds through the project area. As such, the construction of these features within the 50-foot buffer is not likely to have long-term effects on the ecological character of Boxelder Ditch. No development is planned within 40 feet of Flatiron Pond and enhancement planting and opportunities for wetland mitigation are available if needed along the shoreline of the pond. Despite its likely non Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 16 ERO Resources Corporation jurisdictional status, if any work is planned in Flatiron Pond or its abutting wetlands in the project area, a jurisdictional determination should be requested from the Corps. If these areas are considered jurisdictional and work is planned in any of these areas, a Section 404 permit would be required from the Corps for the placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands or below the OHWM. If no work is planned in this feature, no Corps action is necessary. The approved jurisdictional determination for Wetland 1 through Wetland 5 is valid for five years. Based on the determination, no Section 404 permit would be required for work in Wetland 1, Wetland 2, or Wetland 5 (ERO 2021b; Corps 2021; Appendix D). If any work is planned in Wetland 3 or Wetland 4, a Section 404 permit would be required from the Corps for the placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands or below the OHWM. If no work is planned in any of these areas, no Corps action is necessary. Based on the Master Plan (Appendix E), no work is planned with Wetland 3 or Wetland 4, and these areas would be preserved and incorporated as part of a Pollinator Park. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species During the 2024 site visits, 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 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 or Potential to be Affected by Gray wolf Canis lupus Ex Found in temperate forests, mountains, tundra, taiga, and known range Zapus hudsonius preblei Perimyotis subflavus zones; caves, mines, and rock crevices used as night roosts; human structures may be used Birds Laterallus jamaicensis wet sedge meadows with dense cover in the Arkansas River drainage in southeastern Colorado and the Republican discussion below Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 17 ERO Resources Corporation Common Name Scientific Name Status* Habitat or Potential to be Affected by Piping plover** Charadrius melodus T Sandy lakeshore beaches and river sandbars no depletions Grus americana and in agricultural areas no depletions Fish Oncorhynchus clarki stomias T Clear, swift-flowing mountain streams with cover, such as overhanging banks and Scaphirhynchus albus rivers with a strong current no depletions Invertebrates Danaus plexippus plexippus C Dependent on milkweeds (Asclepiadoideae) as host plants and forage on blooming affect Plants (ULTO) Spiranthes diluvialis floodplains of perennial streams, and around springs and lakes below 7,800 feet in orchid** Platanthera praeclara meadows no depletions *T = Federally Threatened Species; E = Federally Endangered Species; C = Candidate Species; PE = Proposed Endangered species; Ex = Experimental Population, Non- Essential. **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. Species Eliminated from Further Consideration The proposed project would not affect the gray wolf, eastern black rail, or greenback cutthroat trout because the project area is outside of the known range of these species or because of the lack of suitable habitat in the project area. The piping plover, whooping crane, pallid sturgeon, and western prairie fringed orchid are species that are affected by continued or ongoing water depletions to the Platte River system. 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. The project area is not within a designated migration corridor or overwintering area for the monarch butterfly (Service 2019), although some monarch butterflies migrate through Colorado in the summer. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 18 ERO Resources Corporation This species may occasionally travel through the project area but is not likely to lay eggs because the project area does not provide adequate host and nectar-producing plants to support viable monarch butterfly populations. Any loss of host and nectar plants in the project area would not result in appreciable take. Furthermore, as a candidate species, monarch butterflies are not currently protected under the ESA. Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Vegetation characteristics similar to those found in suitable habitat for Preble’s, tricolored bat, and eastern black rail are present in portions of the project area, and ULTO is also generally associated with areas near the Platte River system. As such, a more detailed discussion of these species can be found below. 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 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 Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 19 ERO Resources Corporation 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 visits, ERO assessed the project area for potential Preble’s habitat. The project area is dominated by agricultural land and nonnative upland vegetation and does not contain a sufficient lush herbaceous vegetation or shrub cover dominated by sandbar willow 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. Furthermore, the closest known population of Preble’s is more than 10 river 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. Because the project area does not contain any potential habitat for Preble’s, no further action is necessary. 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 these 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 County and Weld County (Adams et al. 2018). Potential Habitat and Recommendations Currently, as a proposed endangered species, tricolored bats are not under federal regulation, and, therefore, no further action is necessary. The Service anticipates publishing the threatened and Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 20 ERO Resources Corporation endangered species listing decision for the tri-colored bat by September of 2024 with a 60-day grace period before the listing would be in effect. Riparian vegetation communities along the Cache la Poudre River, to the east and outside of the project area, contain potential foraging and roosting habitat for the tricolored bat; however, no suitable (contiguous) forested bat breeding habitat is present in the project area. The pockets of trees located in the project area could provide potential roosting habitat for the bat; however, these areas are very limited. Because of the lack of suitable habitat in the project area, it is highly unlikely that the project would result in significant effects on this species. Should the tricolored bat become officially listed under the ESA, ERO recommends implementing avoidance measures to preclude take of individual tricolored bats. Currently, the Service recommends only removing trees and suitable roosting habitat during winter months when the species is not present. Eastern Black Rail Species background The eastern black rail was listed as a threatened species on October 8, 2020, under the ESA (see Federal Register Vol. 85, No. 196:63764-63803) by the Service. The eastern black rail ranges throughout central and eastern North America and south through the Caribbean and Brazil. It has been documented along the Arkansas River drainage in southeastern Colorado and the Republican River in east-central Colorado. Threats to the eastern black rail include habitat fragmentation and conversion resulting in the loss of wetland habitats, sea level rise and tidal flooding, land management practices (e.g., incompatible fire management practices, grazing, and haying/mowing and other mechanical treatment activities) and increasing storm intensity and frequency. No exact counts of eastern black rail populations are currently available; therefore, analysis units based on habitat have been identified across the U.S. Colorado is included in the Great Plains analysis unit (Service 2019). The eastern black rail is dependent on large wetland and marsh habitat that contains a mix of wet, saturated, and some dry edges around the periphery. The subspecies requires dense overhead cover and soils that are moist to saturated (occasionally dry) and interspersed with or adjacent to very shallow water (Service 2019). Plant structure and density is considered more important than plant species composition in predicting habitat suitability. Of note, when shrub densities become too high, habitat is considered less suitable for eastern black rail (Service 2019). The eastern black rail breeding season primarily occurs from May to August with some early nesting in March and April (Service 2019). In Colorado, they have been documented in cattail/bullrush marshes and near pond edges. Along the Republican River in northeastern Colorado and western Kansas, they have been documented in riparian habitat (U.S. Air Force Academy 2020). Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 21 ERO Resources Corporation Potential Habitat and Recommendations The Service broadly maps eastern black rail range in southeastern Colorado along the Arkansas River Basin and north of the Denver metropolitan area, including portions of Larimer County which overlap the project area; however, the Arkansas River Valley is identified as the region where reliably observed breeding populations are known to be present. Given the rarity of eastern black rail, overall, and the minimal number of recent sightings in Colorado north of Denver, eastern black rail are unlikely to be present in the project area. Additionally, the limited wetland habitat in the project area is insufficient to support this species. The only areas containing herbaceous emergent wetlands dominated by cattails are in Rigden Farm Outfall and the FCO, where no activities are proposed to occur. Due to the lack of suitable habitat for eastern black rail in the project area and the avoidance of work in these areas, ERO believes the proposed project would have no effect on this species. 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 listed 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). 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 County and Jefferson County. ULTO does not bloom until late July to early September (depending on the year), and the 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. Furthermore, the wetlands in the project area are dominated by species not usually associated with ULTO, and the wetlands lack the wet meadow areas necessary for the establishment of ULTO (Service 1992). Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 22 ERO Resources Corporation 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 mile or 0.25 mile) (CPW 2020). ERO recommends compliance with the MBTA be achieved by removing 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. Most MBTA issues are the result of a concerned member of the community reporting perceived nest depredation. Potential Habitat and Possible Effects The project area supports a few individual or small stands of nonnative trees, such as white poplar and Russian olive with sparsely scattered native cottonwoods, which provide suitable habitat for nesting songbirds. The nonnative agricultural lands provide limited habitat for grassland birds, and very few grassland species were observed during the 2024 site visits. The pond, ditches and associated wetlands provide narrow strips of wetland and open water that can support nesting scrub-shrub wetland species such as song sparrow and breeding, brood-rearing, and foraging habitat for waterfowl species. Songbird species observed during the 2024 site visits included killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). Although few birds were observed, songbirds likely occur in the upland grasslands, wetland swales, and small stands of trees that occur in the project area. The breeding season for most birds in Colorado is March through August. Waterfowl likely nest in the nonnative agricultural croplands near these water sources prior to hay harvesting. Canada geese and mallard ducks with broods were observed in all the canals during the 2024 site visits. Waterfowl species observed during the 2024 site visits included Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and gadwall (Mareca strepera). Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 23 ERO Resources Corporation ERO also reviewed the CPW raptor database and conducted a general reconnaissance for active and in- use non-eagle raptor nests within 1-mile of the project area. Eagles are addressed in a separate subsection below. Several active nests of various species, including red-tailed hawk, great-horned owl and osprey are recorded on the CPW raptor database as occurring in either the Cottonwood Hollow, Running Deer or Arapahoe Bend Natural Areas. All these nest sites are more than 0.5 miles distant from the project area and visually screened by intervening vegetation and industrial/commercial facilities. One in-use red-tailed hawk nest was observed approximately 830 feet east of the northern portion of the project area on Colorado State University Environmental Learning Center (ELC) property (Figure 2). This nest site is likely a new nest for site 01996 as identified on the CPW database. ERO has been periodically monitoring the status of this nest site since 2009 (ERO 2009). Site 01996 has occupied multiple alternate nests since 2009. The 2024 nest site on ELC property appears to have been established in 2024. This nest site is partially screened by vegetation growing along Rigden Farm Outfall and the pair successfully fledged two young in 2024, even with debris management activities approximately 660-feet away (See eagle section below). Recommendations Vegetation removal should occur outside of the breeding season (typically September through February for songbirds and March through July for most raptors). Both the Denver Field Office of the Service and the Colorado Department of Transportation ( Service 2009; 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 for vegetation removal outside of the breeding season, a nest survey should be conducted within one week prior to vegetation removal to determine if any 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. Bald Eagle Species Background The Bald Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) was originally passed in 1940. In 1962, the Eagle Act was amended to include the golden eagle. The Eagle Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Eagle Act Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 24 ERO Resources Corporation defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb(50 CFR § 22.6).” The Eagle Act affords eagles additional protections beyond those provided by the MBTA by making it unlawful to “disturb” eagles. In 2007, “disturb” under the Eagle Act was defined to mean to “agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information, (1) injury to an eagle; (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior; or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior (50 CFR § 22.6).” The Eagle Act authorizes the Service to issue eagle incidental take permits only when the take is “compatible with the preservation of bald eagles or golden eagles.” In 2024, the Service revised the regulations for the issuance of permits for eagle incidental take and eagle nest take (89 FR 9920). The revised regulations include a new system of general permits in addition to the specific permit system the Service has used in the past. General permits are now available for the disturbance of bald eagles when the disturbance will be a result of several specified activities that include building construction, linear infrastructure construction and maintenance. As part of the revised regulations, the Service has specified recommended distances in the regulation within which these activities may cause disturbance and recommend nest buffers of 660 feet for bald eagles History of Past Human Activities Bald eagles were first observed nesting on the parcel directly east of the project area (East Rigden Property) in 2009 (ERO 2009). Because construction aggregate mining and restoration activities were on-going on both the project area and East Rigden property, ERO developed an Avian Management Plan in consultation with CPW Conservation Biologist Mike Sherman and the local District Wildlife Manager (ERO 2009). This plan has been updated several times as eagle nest locations and land use activities have changed over the years. These Avian Management Plans documented significant human disturbance in the project area for at least the last 40 years. The project area was first permitted in 1979 for sand and gravel mining by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board under Permit No. M-1979-097. The Great Western Railroad, operated by OmniTRAX, bisects the project area diagonally (Figure 2). The Colorado State University (CSU) Environmental Learning Center (ELC) is located directly north and adjacent to the project area. Despite landowner efforts, frequent third-party trespassing occurs along the railroad tracks and riparian corridor and occasional illegal camping occurs along the Cache la Poudre River. Human activities that have occurred in proximity to in-use bald eagle nests are presented below categorized by historic and on-going disturbance within concentric buffers to the nest locations: • Within 660 feet of bald eagle nests: − East Rigden access road. − 2023 dead tree/shrub management (conducted during the nonbreeding season). − Routine property maintenance, including mowing, weed control, and reseeding, conducted Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 25 ERO Resources Corporation during the nonbreeding season, as needed. • Between 660 feet and 1,320 feet of bald eagle nests: − East Rigden access road. − Routine property maintenance, including mowing, weed control, and reseeding, as needed. • Within a 1,320-foot of bald eagle nests: − Ready Mix concrete plant. − Fort Collins water treatment plant. − CSU ELC (includes trails and outdoor classrooms). − Fossil Creek Ditch. − Boxelder Ditch. − Boxelder Water Treatment Plant. − City of Fort Collins Backfilled POE Pit. − Water Storage Reservoir construction. − USGS Pouder River Gaging Station. − Xcel Powerline Fly Over. • Within a 2,640-foot of bald eagle nests: − Rigden Farm Subdivision. − Fort Collins Parks Department east maintenance facility. − Ziegler Road. − East Drake Road. − Pedestrians walking the Fort Collins Reservoir Trail. − Installation and operation of outfall pipe from East Rigden Pond. − Prospect Ponds Natural Area. − Bucking Horse Subdivision. Potential Habitat and Effects As mentioned above, bald eagle have consistently nested along the Cache la Poudre River, within 0.5- mile of the project site. There are two active eagle nest sites in this area that generally function. Forest, shrub and debris management activities were conducted near these active eagle nests on the East Rigden property in September 2023. Per the Avian Management Plan, these activities were conducted during the eagle and raptor non-breeding season. During these management activities, a new pair of adult bald eagles began nest construction activities approximately 660 -feet from the northern portion of the project area (Figure 3.). All tree management and debris removal activities on the East Rigden property immediately ceased on December 21, 2023, as the Service and CPW requested potential disturbance to the eagles be minimized. Due to the risk of downed tree and shrub debris being washed into the river during spring high flows, ERO developed an Eagle Protection Plan (Protection Plan) for Debris Management (ERO 2024) that the Service approved on February 5, 2024 (Appendix E). The Protection Plan establishes a tiered approach that avoided all areas less than 660-feet from the new nest and the most sensitive areas ±0 650325 FeetImage Source: Google Earth©, May 22, 2023 Project Area Active Bald Eagle Nest Active Red-tailed Hawk Aquatic Native Species Conservation Waters HPH 660-foot Nest Buffer Bald Eagle Active Nest Site HPH Figure 3 Raptor Nests and High Priority Habitat Prepared for:Cottonwood Land and Farms, LLC File: 24-115 Figures.aprx (IS) July 26, 2024 Pa t h : P : \ 2 4 _ 1 0 0 \ 2 4 _ 1 1 5 S t r a s s L a k e s E C S \ M a p s \ 2 4 _ 1 1 5 \ 2 4 - 1 1 5 F i g u r e s \ 2 4 - 1 1 5 F i g u r e s . a p r x Strauss Lakes Residential Development Project Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 27 ERO Resources Corporation outside of 660-feet until after all young had fledged or the nest failed. This approach informed the new eagle “take” guidelines. In its February 5, 2024, approval of the Protection Plan, the Service confirmed that an incidental eagle disturbance permit would not be needed and provided additional avoidance and minimization recommendations (Appendix F). ERO monitored all active eagle nest sites within 1-mile of the project area. Three in-use nest sites were observed during 2024. The new nest site north of the project area, an established nest directly south of the Boxelder Water Treatment Plant (Figure 3) and a third nest site approximately 0.75 miles southeast of the project area on Arapahoe Bend Natural Area (not shown on Figure 2). The eagles using the two established nest sites successfully fledged young, while the new nest failed prior to young hatching. It is not un-common for new eagle nest sites to fail in the first year. The northern portion of the project area is within the CPW recommended 0.5 mile buffer and nest site HPH for the new nest site to the north. The consultation with CPW in 2009 and with the Service in February 2024 confirm the agencies’ acknowledgement that eagles nesting in this vicinity have demonstrated tolerance to human disturbance for approximately 15 years. Based on the eagle tolerance, CPW accepted disturbance buffers that were truncated at the railroad line and the Service concurred that the 660-foot disturbance buffers were appropriate for these nest sites (Figure 3). Recommendations Because of existing frequent human activity (e.g., mining, water treatment plants, local traffic, etc.) and demonstrated tolerance to human activities, it is unlikely that bald eagles would be adversely disturbed by activities in the project area. If bald eagles do relocate to a nest location within 660 feet of the project area, and if construction is proposed within this buffer zone, ERO recommends consulting with the Service and CPW to evaluate intervening landscape buffers and whether the adoption of seasonal restrictions is needed. Bald eagles or other raptors choosing to nest within 0.5 mile of the project area during or after construction indicates that these eagles and other raptors have adapted to the construction activity and other existing levels of human disturbance and that no restrictive measures are warranted. Migratory Waterbird (waterfowl and shorebirds) Concentration Areas. Migratory waterbird concentration areas are defined as habitat complexes (several adjacent habitat types close together rather than one specific habitat type) hosting Colorado priority habitat species. These complexes provide food availability, habitat diversity, and sanctuary that are key components for retaining waterbirds during nesting and over winter. As described above, the Cache la Poudre River is an extensive riparian corridor that provides these components. The river corridor combined with old gravel ponds, wetlands and upland fields that provide nesting and foraging opportunities creates an extensive habitat to support waterbird concentrations. Much of this waterbird concentration area has Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 28 ERO Resources Corporation already been protected or preserved as natural areas, open space and private conservation easements that extend for North Shields Ponds to Arapahoe Bend (CODEX 2024). The project area is adjacent to the Cache la Poudre River corridor, but disconnected and fragmented from the corridor by the permitted sand and gravel mining property and active railroad. As a restored aggregate mine currently used for hay production most of the project area has had insufficient time to develop the habitat components needed for waterbird concentrations. Three ditches and canals traverse the project area which provides narrow ribbons of habitat for waterbirds. Most of these canals will be buffered as defined in the land use code, maintaining the existing ribbons of habitat and contributing to the connectivity and function of the nearby Cache la Poudre River waterbird concentration area. Key Terrestrial Habitat The Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP, 2015) has identified Key Terrestrial Habitat through the state, including three habitats that may occur on the project area: wetlands, sandsage and riparian woodlands and shrublands. The statewide mapping was conducted at a very high level on a state-wide scale that is imprecise to apply to small scale local land use as evidenced by many of the key habitat polygons located within reservoirs, on top of roadways, etc. Although the state-wide mapping is imprecise, the objectives of identifying key habitat is still valid on the project area. Wetlands are addressed in the wetlands subsection of this ECS and no sandsage was identified on the site (Figure 2). According to the SWAP, lower riparian woodlands and shrublands are found within the flood zone of rivers, on islands, sand or cobble bars, and immediate streambanks. (CPW 2015). On the eastern plains, riparian woodlands and shrublands are generally dominated by plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and willow species (Salix spp.), but also occur as a mosaic of multiple communities interspersed with herbaceous patches. Riparian woodland and shrub habitat occurs extensively along the Cache la Poudre River, northeast of the project area. Riparian woodland and shrub habitat is essentially non-existent on the project site due to the extensive aggregate mining and reservoir creation occurring as recently as 10 years ago (Figure 4). The project area is outside of the river floodplain and lacks rivers, streams and other hydrological sources necessary to support this habitat. Only scattered individual trees and patches of trees occur on the project site. The largest tree patch is a white poplar stand near the intersection of E. Horsetooth and Zeigler Road. These trees are non-native, most likely planted by homesteaders, and are starting to show signs of die-back of the tree crowns. South County Road9 Ziegler Road East Horsetooth Road EastDrakeRoad CacheLaPoudreRiver P r e p a r e d f o r : C o tt o n w o o d L a n d a n d F a r m s , L L C F i l e : 2 4 -1 1 5 F i g u r e 4 H i s to r i c .m x d [d l H ] Ju l y 2 6 , 2 0 2 4 Figure 4 Extent of Recent Disturbance, Circa 2014 Strauss Lakes Residential Development Project Aerial Image: © Copyright Google Earth Pro 6/19/2014 ±0 700350feet Project Area Path: P:\24_100\24_115 Strass Lakes ECS\Maps\24-115 Figure 4 Historic.mxd Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 30 ERO Resources Corporation High Priority Habitat and Big Game In 2021, CPW released a High Priority Habitat (HPH) table that identifies species and habitats as well as recommendations to avoid and minimize impacts on wildlife from land use development (CPW 2021). ERO reviewed data from CPW map databases and determined that two HPH areas overlap the project area including Bald Eagle Active Nest Site HPH and Aquatic Native Species Conservation Waters (ANSCW) HPH (CPW 2021; Figure 3). The Bald Eagle Active Nest Site HPH is addressed in the Bald Eagle section above, and the ANSCW HPH is discussed in more detail below. Aquatic Native Species Conservation Waters (ANSCW) Background Aquatic native species are found throughout Colorado wherever water resources are present. They are typically sensitive to changes in water quality factors such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity. The health of a water resource can often be evaluated based on the presence or absence of certain aquatic species. A major threat to the aquatic native resources in Colorado is urban development, which leads to consumptive water use and dams, as well as aquatic nuisance species, which often outcompete native species for resources. Potential Habitat and Recommendations The buffer zone of the pond in the Topminnow Natural Area, south of the project area, an ANSCW, extends into the southern portion of the project area (CPW 2023; Figure 3). Based on observations during the 2024 site visits, the ANSCW buffer between the pond in the Topminnow Natural Area and the project area has been heavily modified by human activity, including the highly used East Horsetooth Road. As such, ERO believes activities in the project area would not affect the pond in the Topminnow Natural Area as an ANSCW. A Table of natural habitat and features potentially occurring in or near the Project Area is provided in Appendix G. CPW recommends no surface occupancy or ground disturbance within a 500-foot-buffer of any ANSCW OHWM. The southern boundary of the project area is about 440 feet from the OWHM of the pond in the Topminnow Natural Area, and the additional work buffer of 50-feet around the FCO would prohibit any work within 500 feet of the ANSCW HPH. If any work would be conducted in areas mapped in the ANSCW HPH area, ERO recommends contacting the local CPW district manager requesting concurrence that the proposed project would not likely affect the pond in the Topminnow Natural Area as an ASMW due to the high level of disturbance of the buffer in this area. 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 black bear (Ursus americanus); however, Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 31 ERO Resources Corporation the project area has been substantially modified by human activities over the past decades by agricultural activities, which has degraded the overall wildlife habitat value for big game and other wildlife species. The pond area and ditch corridors in the project area provide some contiguous habitat, water resources, and core wildlife values, such as cover and forage, for various wildlife species, including big game; however, the functionality of these areas has been reduced. Big game species likely use the project area for foraging; however, the riparian corridor along the Cache la Poudre River, north of the project area, provides more optimal habitat. While wildlife may occasionally forage in the project area due to the proximity of these natural habitat features because the project area is surrounded by agricultural activities, tertiary roads, I-25, and fairly dense, existing residential development, 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. Wildlife using the project area has likely become adapted to human disturbance due to the proximity of I-25 and nearby development to the project area. 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. Views The area surrounding the project area is largely undeveloped and surrounded, mainly, by agricultural fields to the north, east, and south and residential development to the west. 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 except for the far southeast corner where views are prohibited due to topographic relief and the adjacent residential developments. Rigden Reservoir is east of the project area and is currently visible from most locations in the project area. Impacts and Recommendations Cottonwood Land and Farms, LLC proposes to develop the project area for residential multi-use which is consistent with such development adjacent to the project area. 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. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 32 ERO Resources Corporation The project area contains some grassland and wetland vegetation communities that provide habitat for wildlife and migratory birds; however, these areas are scattered between agricultural fields that are dominated by nonnative species, and that have been frequently modified over the last 60 years. Therefore, these areas do not provide high-quality wildlife habitat. Additionally, buffers are proposed along most of these features to protect their ecological integrity (Appendix E). Most of the vegetation would be removed from the project area during construction, but trees would be preserved, where possible. As part of the development, small channels or swales and multiple detention facilities would be incorporated into the overall landscape plan to control surface water flows throughout the project area with a final pond in the southeast corner planned to provide final flow control. These drainages and detention ponds offer opportunities to provide habitat for wildlife and to serve as wildlife passages through the project area. Currently, wildlife 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. Wetland Mitigation Based on the development plans (Appendix E), the proposed project would potentially impact approximately 0.16 acre of combined impacts on Wetland 1, Wetland 2, and Wetland 5 in the southwestern portion of the project area. As described in the Wetland Functions section of this ESC, the wetlands in the project area are low quality and low functioning due to human modifications and stressors to water source and distribution, water quality, geomorphology, and vegetation composition and structure. Water flow to and in the wetlands is currently supported primarily by managed hydrology in the ditches and from impervious surface and agricultural runoff. Opportunities exist in the project area for wetland mitigation and enhancement to be conducted onsite, including around Flatiron Pond and along the proposed stormwater swales and detention facilities, are present. The project design incorporates Fort Collins Land Use Code wetland and canal buffer recommendations to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to all wetlands to the extent practicable. Wetland impacts that are unavoidable would be largely mitigated with constructed stormwater wetlands for both water quality and wildlife habitat functions. ERO expects that the proposed wetland enhancements would likely result in higher functioning wetlands than those proposed to be impacted because they would be planted with native seed mixes with more diversity than is currently present and would have improved structure by planting native trees and shrubs. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 33 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 Department of Transportation. 2011. “Section 240, Protection of Migratory Birds.” https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/wildlife/guidelines/BirdspecCDOTbio.pdf/vie w. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2024. “Colorado’s Conservation Data Explorer (CODEX).” https://codex.cnhp.colostate.edu/. 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. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 34 ERO Resources Corporation ———. 2020. “Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors.” https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/Raptor-Buffer- Guidelines.pdf. ———. 2021. “CPW Recommendations to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Wildlife from Land Use Development in Colorado.” ———. 2023. “Wildlife Species Map Application.” Database. Colorado Parks and Wildlife - Wildlife Species Map Application. 2023. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/instant/interactivelegend/index.html?appid=b3e1f4c17e98481c8 5f9683b02e91250. 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. 2021a. “Natural Resources Assessment Southwestern Portion of the East Rigden Property Fort Collins, Colorado.” ———. 2021b. “Request for Approved Jurisdictional Determination for the Southwestern Portion of the East Rigden Property in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado.” ———. 2023a. “Avian Management Plan for the East Rigden Property, Fort Collins, Colorado.” ———. 2023b. “Eagle/Raptor Protection Plan for Debris Management - East Rigden Property, Larimer County, CO.” Fujita, Marty S., and Thomas H. Kunz. 1984. “Pipistrellus Subflavus.” In Mammalian Species, 6. 228. The American Society of Mammalogists. https://watermark.silverchair.com/228- 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. Google, Inc. 2024. “Google Earth Pro.” Online database. Google Earth Pro. 2024. https://earth.google.com/web. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 2024. “Historical Aerials.” 2024. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 35 ERO Resources Corporation Natural Diversity Information Source. 2021. “Natural Diversity Information Source.” Colorado Parks and Wildlife: Colorado Hunting Atlas. 2021. https://ndismaps.nrel.colostate.edu/index.html?app=HuntingAtlas. 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. U.S. Air Force Academy. 2020. “Personal Communication between Brian Mihlbachler (USAFA), Leslie Ellwood (Service), and Clint Henke (ERO).” 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.” ———. 2021. “Approved Jurisdictional Determination – Corps File No. NWO-2021- 01991-DEN, East Rigden Property, Fort Collins, CO.” 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. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 36 ERO Resources Corporation ———. 2009. “Personal Communication between Pete Plage (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and ERO Resources Corporation.” ———. 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.” U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. “Species Status Assessment Report for the Eastern Black Rail (Laterallus Jamaicensis Jamaicensis).” Species Assessment Version 1.3. https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/186791. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024a. “Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Resource List.” 2024. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. ———. 2024b. “National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper.” 2024. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. U.S. Geological Survey. 2024. “National Hydrography Dataset.” U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/. 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. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix A Photo Log Photo Log Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado May 3, May 11, and June 11, 2024 Photo 1 - Overview of agricultural land in the project area with Rigden Reservoir in the background. View is southeast. Photo 2 - Overview of nonnative uplands in the project area with residential development and mountains in the background. View is west. Photo Log Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado May 3, May 11, and June 11, 2024 Photo 3 - Nonnative uplands with a nonnative tree stand in the southeastern portion of the project area. View is northwest. Photo 4 - Wetlands in Unnamed Ditch 1 along the northern boundary of the project area. Photo Log Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado May 3, May 11, and June 11, 2024 Photo 5 - Cattail dominated wetlands in Unnamed Ditch 2 along the southern boundary of the project area. View is west. Photo 6 - Pond 1 in the northern portion of the project area. View is southwest. Photo Log Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado May 3, May 11, and June 11, 2024 Photo 7 - Overview of the upstream end of Boxelder Ditch in the northwestern portion of the project area. View is southeast. Photo 8 - Narrow wetland fringes along Boxleder Ditch in the north central portion of the project area. View is northwest. Photo Log Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado May 3, May 11, and June 11, 2024 Photo 9 - Overview of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet and narrow, fringe wetlands in the southeastern portion of the project area. View is southwest. Photo 10 - Wetland 1 consisting of a man-made stock watering pond in the southwestern portion of the project area. View is southeast. Photo Log Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado May 3, May 11, and June 11, 2024 Photo 11 - Wetland 3 and Wetland 4 in the southwestern portion of the project area with a surface connection to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet. View is east. Photo 12 - Wetland 5 on the hillslope in the southwestern portion of the project area. View is east. Photo Log Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado May 3, May 11, and June 11, 2024 Photo 13 - Overview of Data Point (DP)5 collected in the nonnative uplands. View is southwest. Photo 14 - Overview of Data Point (DP)6 collected in the nonnative uplands. View is southwest. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix B. Commonly Occurring Plant Species in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator Status Noxious Weed List Upland Vegetation Medicago sativa Helianthis annuus Rumex crispus Hieracium cynoglossoides Bassia prostrata Ericameria nauseosa Bromus inermis Melilotus officinalis Pascopyrum smithii Noxious Weeds Cirsium arvense Verbascum thapsus Convolvulus arvensis Epilobium hirsutum Euphorbia esula Carduus nutans Elaeagnus angustifolia Wetland Vegetation Typha angustifolia Chenopodium glaucum Phalaris arundinacea Distichlis spicata Persicaria maculosa Trees and Shrubs Salix exigua Populus alba *Obligate Wetland [OBL]—Occurs with an estimated 99 percent probability in wetlands. Facultative Wetland [FACW]—Estimated 67 to 99 percent probability of occurrence in wetlands. Facultative [FAC]—Equally likely to occur in wetlands and nonwetlands (34 to 66 percent probability). Facultative Upland [FACU]—67 to 99 percent probability in nonwetlands; 1 to 33 percent in wetlands. Upland [UPL]—>99 percent probability in nonwetlands in this region. Source: Ackerfield 2015; Corps 2020; USDA, NRCS 2024a; Weber et al. 2012. Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix C Routine Wetland Determination Datasheets US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: 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: #24-115 Strauss Lake Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC CO DP1 E. Clary, J. Dresen S28 T7N R68W Lakeshore None 1 G 40.546465° -105.017326° NAD Water PABFx Y Y N N N N The area surrounding DP1 was previously disturbed, leaving the vegetation and soils in the area significantly disturbed. 30' 15' 5' mbrosia artemisiifolia Chenopodium glaucum Yes No Yes FACW FACU FAC Vegetation along the reservoir adjacent to DP1 was lacking, though still assessed due to cover being above 5%. Persicaria maculosa 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: DP1 0-3 0-3 3-10 10YR 4/2 2.5YR 4/4 Gley 1 3/N 90 10 95 10YR 5/6 5 C M SiCl Silt Silt Lots of rocks present Rock 10 Extremely rocky soil, had to dig several holes to get a profile. 6 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: #24-115 Strauss Lake Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC CO DP2 E. Clary, J. Dresen S28 T7N R68W Disturbed uplands None 0 G 40.546493° -105.017272° NAD Water Y Y N N N N 30' 15' 5' Melilotus officinalis Convolvulus arvensis Cirsium arvense Yes Yes Yes No FACU FACU UPL FACU Carduus nutans 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: DP2 0-2 10YR 6/3 100 Rock 2 Could not dig, hit large rocks at 2 inches 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: #24-115 Strauss Lake Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC CO DP3 E. Clary, J. Dresen S28 T7N R68W Stream terrace Concave 5 G 40.546077° -105.016389° NAD Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes R5UBFx N N N N N N 30' 15' Elaeagnus angustifolia Yes Yes FACW FACU Salix exigua 5' Cirsium arvense Lactuca serriola Yes No No FACW FACU FAC Phalaris arundinacea 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: DP3 0-3 3-7 7-12 10YR 4/3 10YR 4/3 10YR 2/1 10YR 3/2 100 98 75 22 10YR 4/4 7.5YR 4/6 2 3 C C M,PL M SiClLo SiClLo SaClLo SaClLo 8 4 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: #24-115 Strauss Lake Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC CO DP4 E. Clary, J. Dresen S28 T7N R68W Hillslope Convex 7 G 40.546063°-105.016404°NAD Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes N/A N N N N N N 30' 15' Elaeagnus angustifolia Yes Yes FACW FACU Salix exigua 5' Hieracium cynoglossoides Lactuca serriola Phalaris arundinacea Yes Yes No No FACU UPL FAC FACW 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: DP4 0-12 10YR 5/4 100 Dry rocky soil None observed Sandy Sandy rocky soil 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: #24-115 Strauss Lake Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC CO DP5 E. Clary, J. Dresen S28 T7N R68W Old agricultural field None 0 G 40.541827° -105.013916° NAD Stoneham loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes N/A N N N N N N 30' 15' 0 0 135 5'148 gropyron cristatum Rumex crispus Cirsium arvense Convolvulus arvensis Yes No Yes No No FACU UPL FAC FACU UPL 75 358 3.69 Pascopyrum smithii 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 0-8 10YR 4/3 100 Dense rocky soil 8 None observed Silt 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: #24-115 Strauss Lake Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC CO DP6 E. Clary, J. Dresen S28 T7N R68W Old agricultural field None 0 G 40.541656°-105.014307°NAD Stoneham loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes N/A N N N N N N 30' 15' 5' Convolvulus arvensis gropyron cristatum Yes No No FACU UPL UPL 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: DP6 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 None observed Silt 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: #24-115 Strauss Lake Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC CO DP7 E. Clary, J. Dresen S28 T7N R68W Old agricultural field None 0 G 40.541176° -105.013411° NAD Stoneham loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes N/A N N N N N N 30' 15' 5' Cirsium arvense Convolvulus arvensis mbrosia artemisiifolia Pascopyrum smithii Lotus corniculatus Bromus tectorum Yes Yes No No Yes No No FAC FACU UPL FACU FACU FACU UPL Rumex crispus 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: DP7 0-10 10YR 4/3 100 SiCl None observed 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: #24-115 Strauss Lake Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC CO DP8 E. Clary, J. Dresen S28 T7N R68W Cattail vegetated ditch None 1 G 40.537977° -105.011679° NAD Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope No data N N N N N N 30' 15' 5' Eleocharis palustris Cirsium arvense Schoenoplectus pungens Yes Yes No No OBL OBL FACU OBL Typha angustifolia 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: DP8 0-12 Gley 1 2.5/N 2.5Y 2.5/1 30 70 Mucky Mucky Organic matter Full profile of soil was mucky and composed of almost entirely organic matter. 0 4 1 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: #24-115 Strauss Lake Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC CO DP9 E. Clary, J. Dresen S28 T7N R68W Hillslope Convex 3 G 40.538017° -105.011689° NAD Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slope N/A N N N N N N 30' 15' 5' Bromus inermis Cirsium arvense Yes No No FACU UPL FACU Pascopyrum smithii 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: DP9 Did not dig due to presence of upland vegetation and lack of hydrology. None observed Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix D Request and Response for Approved Jurisdictional Determination for the Southwestern Portion of the East Rigden Property in Fort Collins, Larimer County DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BOULEVARD LITTLETON, COLORADO 80128-6901 December 13, 2021 SUBJECT: Approved Jurisdictional Determination – Corps File No. NWO-2021- 01991-DEN, East Rigden Property, Fort Collins, CO Bill McDowell Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC P.O. Box 229 Boulder, CO 80306 Dear Mr. McDowell: This letter is in reference to the property located at approximate latitude 40.539034993586, longitude -105.018730141063, in Larimer County, Colorado. The submittal dated November 9, 2021, consists of a request for an Approved Jurisdictional Determination for the above project. The delineated area located on the subject property has been reviewed in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act under which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material, and any excavation activity associated with a dredge and fill project in waters of the United States. At your request, an Approved Jurisdictional Determination, a written indication that wetlands and waterways within your project area are or are not waters of the United States has been prepared. The review area contains the following that are or are not considered waters of the United States (WOTUS). The Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal diverts water from the Cache la Poudre River during the spring snow-melt run off period (April through July) and conveys it to Fossil Creek Reservoir for storage and later use. The Fossil Creek Outlet delivers water back to the Cache la Poudre River (a traditional navigable water) for subsequent diversion and use. The Fossil Creek Inlet canal is a relatively permanent waterway tributary to a traditional navigable water and is therefore a jurisdictional water of the U.S. Wetlands 3 and 4 abut and discharge into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal and are therefore jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Wetlands 1 and 2 are livestock ponds excavated down to the water table in uplands but have no surface connection to Wetlands 3 or 4 or the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal and are therefore not jurisdictional waters of the U.S.. Wetland 5 occurs on a hillslope and has no surface or shallow subsurface connection to Wetlands 3 or 4 or the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal and is therefore not a jurisdictional water of the U.S. The Approved Jurisdictional Determination is attached to this letter. If you are not in agreement with the decision, you may request an administrative appeal under - 2 - regulation 33 CFR 331, by using the attached Appeal Form and Administrative Appeal Process form. The request for appeal must be received within 60 days from the date of this letter. It is not necessary to submit a Request for Appeal if you do not object to the Approved Jurisdictional Determination. This Approved Jurisdictional Determination is valid for a period of five years from the date of this letter, unless new information warrants revision of the Approved Jurisdictional Determination before the expiration date, or unless the Corps has identified, after a possible public notice and comment, that specific geographic areas with rapidly changing environmental conditions merit re-verification on a more frequent basis. If there are any questions please feel free to contact Cody Wheeler at (303) 979- 4120 or by e-mail at Cody.S.Wheeler@usace.army.mil, and reference Corps File No. NWO-2021-01991-DEN. Sincerely, Cody Wheeler Regulatory Project Manager Enclosure(s) Copies Furnished by Email: Bill McDowell Whmcd999@gmail.com Courtney Marne cmarne@eroresources.com , APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): 12/13/2021 B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Denver Regulatory Office, East Rigden Property, NWO-2021-01991-DEN C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State: Colorado County/parish/borough: Larimer City:Fort Collins Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat.40.539035 N; Long. 105.01873 W Name of nearest waterbody: Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Canal Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Cache La Poudre River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Fossil Creek Reservoir-Cache La Poudre River 101900071002 Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc…) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 12/2/2021 Field Determination. Date(s): 12/3/2021 SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “navigable waters of the U.S.” within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: . B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are and are not “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): 1 TNWs, including territorial seas Wetlands adjacent to TNWs Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non-wetland waters: 1414 linear feet: 20width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands:0.14 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation Manual Elevation of established OHWM (if known): 2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Wetland 1 and 2 were determined to be preamble waters (farm ponds excavated in uplands) and are not considered jurisdictional. Wetland 5 is isolated. There is no information available to show that Wetland 5 is or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreation or other purposes, produces fish or shellfish which are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce, or is or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. See reference below in Section III.F. SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS 1 Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. 2 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least “seasonally” (e.g., typically 3 months). 3 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Click or tap here to enter text. Summarize rationale supporting determination Click or tap here to enter text. 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is “adjacent”: B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are “relatively permanent waters” (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: NA Choose an item. Drainage area: NA Choose an item. Average annual rainfall: 16 inches Average annual snowfall: 48 inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: Tributary flows directly into TNW. Tributary flows through 1 tributary before entering TNW. Project waters are 5 to 10 river miles from TNW. Project waters are Choose an item. river miles from RPW. Project waters are 1 or less aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Choose an item. aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Click or tap here to enter text. Identify flow route to TNW5 The Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal flows 1.23 miles south from the Cache La Poudre River to the project site and then 3.15 miles south to Fossil Creek Reservoir. The Fossil Creek Reservoir Outlet then flows 1.5 miles northeast to the Cache la Poudre River. Tributary stream order, if known: NA. (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply): Tributary is: Natural Artificial (man-made). Explain: Irrigation canal. 4 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid West. 5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Click or tap here to enter text.. Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: 20 feet Average depth: 3 feet Average side slopes:Verticle (1:1 or less). Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): Silts Sands Concrete Cobbles Gravel Muck Bedrock Vegetation. Type/% cover: Click or tap here to enter text.. Other. Explain: clay. Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: maintained Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: no. Tributary geometry: Meandering Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): 1 % (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Seasonal flow Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: 11 to 20 Describe flow regime: during the spring and summer snow melt runoff period. Other information on duration and volume: Click or tap here to enter text. Surface flow is: Discrete and Confined. Characteristics: Click or tap here to enter text. Subsurface flow: Unknown. Explain findings: Click or tap here to enter text.. Dye (or other) test performed: Click or tap here to enter text. Tributary has (check all that apply): Bed and banks OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): clear, natural line impressed on the bank the presence of litter and debris changes in the character of soil destruction of terrestrial vegetation shelving the presence of wrack line vegetation matted down, bent, or absent sediment sorting leaf litter disturbed or washed away scour sediment deposition multiple observed or predicted flow events water staining abrupt change in plant community other (list): Click or tap here to enter text.. Discontinuous OHWM.7 Explain Click or tap here to enter text.. If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by: oil or scum line along shore objects survey to available datum; fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) physical markings; physical markings/characteristics vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. tidal gauges other (list): Click or tap here to enter text.. (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Water diverted from the Cache la Poudre River is clear and of fairly high water quality but picks up dissolved sol0.14ids and N, P, and K as it travels through agricultural lands.. Identify specific pollutants, if known: Click or tap here to enter text. (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): Click or tap here to enter text.. Wetland fringe. Characteristics: reed canary grass.. Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Click or tap here to enter text.. Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Click or tap here to enter text. . 6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody’s flow regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 7Ibid. Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: Click or tap here to enter text. Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: Click or tap here to enter text.. 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: 0.14 acres Wetland type. Explain: Palustrine emergent wetlands in a ditch dug down to the water table.. Wetland quality. Explain: Wetlands are dominated by reed canary grass, cattails, and common three square and are poor to fair quality.. Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: no. (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Intermittent Explain: Wetland 3 was wet on 12-02-2021 but dried out before reaching Wetland 4 which was dry. I expect that Wetland 3 would flow to Wetland 4 and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal during wetter seasons and years. Surface flow is: Discrete and Confined Characteristics: Click or tap here to enter text. Subsurface flow: Unknown Explain findings: Click or tap here to enter text.. Dye (or other) test performed: Click or tap here to enter text.. (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: Directly abutting Not directly abutting Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: Click or tap here to enter text.. Ecological connection. Explain: Click or tap here to enter text.. Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: Click or tap here to enter text.. (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are 5 to 10 river miles from TNW. Project waters are 1 or less aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from:Wetland to navigable waters Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 500-year or greater floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: clear with some oil film on the surface. Identify specific pollutants, if known: Click or tap here to enter text.. (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): Click or tap here to enter text.. Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: Wetlands 3 and 4 are fully vegetated with Typha angustifolia – 70%, Phalaris arundinacea – 15%, Lactuca serriola – 2%, Cirsium arvense 5%, and Rumex crispus – 2%. Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: Click or tap here to enter text. Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: Click or tap here to enter text.. Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: Click or tap here to enter text.. Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings limited habitat for common species such as redwing blackbirds, frogs, raccoons, coyotes 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Choose an item. Approximately Click or tap here to enter text.) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Wetland 3 -Yes 0.13 Wetland 4 - yes 0.01 Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: Wetlands 3 and 4 provide limited biological, chemical, and physical functions. C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: 1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: Click or tap here to enter text.. 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D. Click or tap here to enter text.. 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: Click or tap here to enter text. D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: TNWs: Click or tap here to enter text. linear feet Click or tap here to enter text. width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: . Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow “seasonally” (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: The Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal diverts water from the Cache la Poudre River during the spring snow-melt run off period (April through July) and conveys it to Fossil Creek Reservoir for storage and later use. The Fossil Creek Outlet delivers water to various irrigation ditches as well as back to the Poudre River for subsequent diversion and use. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: 1415 linear feet 20 width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . 3. Non-RPWs8 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). 8See Footnote # 3. Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: . Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow “seasonally.” Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Wetland 3 connects to Wetland 4 which discharges into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.14 acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from “waters of the U.S.,” or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: . Other factors. Explain: . Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: . Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . Wetlands: acres. F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” the review area would have been regulated based solely on the “Migratory Bird Rule” (MBR). . Waters do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: . 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. Other: (explain, if not covered above): Reference is made to the November 13, 1986 Federal Register discussion of Section 328.3 on page 41217. The Corps of Engineers generally does not consider to be jurisdictional artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. Wetlands 1 and 2 are livestock ponds excavated down to the water table in uplands, have no connection to the other wetlands or the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal, and therefore are not jurisdictional. Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: . Wetlands: 0.19 acres. Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: . Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Data sheets prepared by the Corps: . Corps navigable waters’ study . U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: . USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24K Fort Collins. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: . National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: . State/Local wetland inventory map(s): . FEMA/FIRM maps: . 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): Google Earth or Other (Name & Date): . Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: . Applicable/supporting case law: Rapanos. Applicable/supporting scientific literature: . Other information (please specify): . B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: The regulations define “adjacent” as follows:“The term adjacent means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are ‘adjacent wetlands.’”Under this definition, the Corps considers wetlands adjacent if one of following three criteria are satisfied. First, there is an unbroken surface or shallow sub-surface connection to jurisdictional waters. This hydrologic connection may be intermittent. Second, they are physically separated from jurisdictional waters by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like. Or third, their proximity to a jurisdictional water is reasonably close, supporting the science-based inference that such wetlands have an ecological interconnection with jurisdictional waters. First, there is no unbroken surface or shallow sub-surface connection from Wetland 5 to the Fossl Creek Reservoir Inlet canal, the closes jurisdictional tributary. Second, Wetland 5 is not physically separated from jurisdictional waters by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like. And third, Wetland 5 is on a hill slope about 225 feet from aWetland 3 or the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal, too far to infer that Wetland 5 has an ecological interconnection with those jurisdictional waters. Taking these criteria into consideration,Wetland 5 is considered isolated and non-jurisdictional.. NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: Bill McDowell File Number: NWO-2021-01991-DEN Date: December 13, 2021 Attached is: See Section below INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B PERMIT DENIAL C X APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision. Additional information may be found in Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331, or at • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. ou may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. provide new information. • ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. • APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.) record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, process you may contact: US Army Corps of Engineers, Denver Regulatory Office Attn: Cody Wheeler 9307 S. Wadsworth Blvd Littleton, CO 80128 Telephone (720) 922-3846 also contact: US Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division Attn: Melinda Larsen, Regulatory Appeals Review Officer 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd Ste 400 Portland, OR 97232-1257 Telephone (503) 808-3888 consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day REQUEST FOR CORPS JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory authorities referenced below. Note: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued. CORPS USE ONLY: DATE RECEIVED: PROJECT NO.: 1. PROPERTY LOCATION: Street Address: City/Township/Parish: County: State: Acreage of Parcel/Review Area for JD: Section: Township: Range: Latitude: Longitude: (For linear projects, please include the center point of the proposed alignment.) 2. REQUESTOR CONTACT INFORMATION: Typed or printed name: Company name: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Daytime phone no.: Email address: 3. MAP: Please attach a survey/plat map and vicinity map identifying location and review area for the JD. 4. REASON FOR REQUEST (check as many as applicable): I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting process. I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application and the JD is to be used in the permitting process. I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. A Corps JD is required in order to obtain my local/state authorization. I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel. I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land/upland. Other: 5. TYPE OF DETERMINATION BEING REQUESTED: I am requesting an approved JD I am requesting a preliminary JD I am requesting a “no permit required” letter as I believe my proposed activity is not regulated. I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information. 6. OWNERSHIP DETAILS: I currently own this property. I plan to purchase this property. I am an agent/consultant acting on behalf of the requestor. Other (please explain): *Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Final Rule for 33 CFR Parts 320-332. Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website and on the Headquarters USACE website. By signing below, you are indicating that you have the authority, or are acting as the duly authorized agent of a person or entity with such authority, to and do hereby grant Corps personnel right of entry to legally access the site if needed to perform the JD. Your signature shall be an affirmation that you possess the requisite property rights to request a JD on the subject property. Signature: Date: 11/09/2021 Fort Collins NE of Ziegler Road and East Horsetooth Ro Larimer CO see report 28 7N 68W 40.539032°N - 105.018765°W Bill McDowell Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC P.O. Box 229 Boulder CO 80306 303-588-7735 whmcd999@gmail.com see attached figures Owned by: Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC Managin Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, CO 80218 303.830.1188 Durango 1015 ½ Main Avenue Durango, CO 81301 970.422.2136 Hotchkiss P.O. Box 932 161 South 2nd Street Hotchkiss, CO 81419 970.872.3020 Idaho 4001 East Main Street Emmett, ID 83617 208.365.7684 www.eroresources.com ERO Resources Corp. November 10, 2021 Mr. Kiel Downing Denver Regulatory Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9307 South Wadsworth Boulevard Littleton, Colorado 80128-6901 RE: Request for Approved Jurisdictional Determination for the Southwestern Portion of the East Rigden Property in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Downing, On behalf of Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC, ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) is requesting an approved Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for the southwestern portion of the East Rigden property northeast of the intersection of Ziegler Road and East Horsetooth Road in Larimer County, Colorado (project area; Figure 1). Future projects may impact this area, and the approved JD would be used to avoid and minimize impacts on any jurisdictional features. Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC retained ERO to identify potential waters of the U.S. in the project area, including wetlands, and to assist with Clean Water Act compliance. On April 12, 2021, Courtney Marne and Emma Clary, biologists with ERO, assessed the project area for potential isolated wetlands, jurisdictional wetlands, and other possible waters of the U.S. (2021 site visit). The wetland delineation was conducted in the project area; however, it did not include the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet. Based on the information in this report, if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determines that some or all of the wetlands are not jurisdictional, ERO would appreciate a written determination of this request confirming that no further consultation under Section 404 is required. Project Area Location The project area is in Section 28, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1). The project area is northeast of the intersection of Ziegler Road and East Horsetooth Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. The UTM coordinates for the approximate center of the project area are 498411mE, 4487587mN, Zone 13 North. The longitude/latitude for the approximate center of the project area is - 105.018765°W/40.539032°N. The elevation of the project area is approximately 4,905 feet above sea level. Mr. Kiel Downing Denver Regulatory Office Page 2 November 10, 2021 ERO Resources Corporation Project Area Description The project area is bounded by Ziegler Road to the west, East Horsetooth Road to the south, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet on the north and east. Photos of the project area are attached. During the 2021 site visit, the majority of the project area consisted of upland grasslands with isolated pockets of wetlands. The upland areas were dominated by a mixture of native and introduced plant species including western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) (Photo 1). Potential waters of the U.S., including adjacent wetlands, identified in the project area are shown on Figure 2. Data were collected from various locations in the project area to document the characteristics of uplands and wetlands and the transition areas between them. Each data point (DP1 through DP9) was given a label that corresponds to a location shown on Figure 2 and routine wetland determination forms (attached). Information on potential surface water connections of wetlands and other waters in the project area are discussed in detail below. ERO mapped approximately 0.262 acre of wetlands and 0.004 acre of ordinary high water mark in the project area during the 2021 site visit (Figure 2). During the 2021 site visit, five separate wetland areas (Wetlands 1 through 5) were mapped in the project area. None of the mapped wetlands are shown in the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) or on the U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins topographic map; however, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet is shown as a canal/ditch in the NHD. The wetlands all appear to be supported by groundwater seepage from the hillside (Photo 2). The wetland areas are dominated mostly by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), and common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens) (Photo 3). Wetlands 1 and 2 appear to be man-made stock watering ponds and are encircled by berms (Photo 5). The depressional areas where Wetlands 1 and 2 have formed appear to have been excavated in uplands and were likely associated with previous agricultural operations. A buried pipe connects Wetlands 1 and 2; however, no surface inflow or outflow was observed from Wetlands 1 and 2. Because these wetlands do not appear to have a downstream surface connection to a known water of the U.S., ERO believes these features would be considered nonjurisdictional. Wetlands 3 and 4 occur along the hillslope in the project area and flow downslope to the east. There is a small upland break between Wetlands 3 and 4 (Figure 2), and Wetland 4 has a surface connection to potential wetlands abutting the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet (Photo 4). The Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet is shown as a canal/ditch in the NHD. It is approximately 20 feet wide in the project area, has a defined channel and bed and bank, and contained flowing water at the time of the 2021 site visit (Photo 6). Flows in the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet are typically turned on in April each year and are primarily used for agricultural purposes (2021 site visit). The inlet has relatively steep vegetated walls for most of its length along the project area but has concrete walls under East Horsetooth Road (Photos 6 and 7). Based on aerial Mr. Kiel Downing Denver Regulatory Office Page 3 November 10, 2021 ERO Resources Corporation imagery and the NHD, the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet generally flows to the south and southeast, into the Fossil Creek Reservoir, approximately 3.15 river miles away. From the reservoir, water flows into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Outlet, where it appears to flow into the Cache la Poudre River and then the Greeley No. 2 Canal. The Greeley No. 2 Canal eventually dissipates into agricultural land approximately 43 river miles away. It is unclear if Wetlands 3 and 4 or the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet adjacent to the project area are isolated or if they have a significant nexus to a known water of the U.S. Wetland 5 occurs on a hillslope in the project area and does not have any surface connections to the other wetlands in the project area or the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet (Figure 2). Wetland 5 dissipates into uplands in the project area and appears to be isolated without a significant nexus to known waters of the U.S. Due to its isolation from known waters of the U.S., ERO believes Wetland 5 would be considered nonjurisdictional. On behalf of Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC, ERO is requesting an approved JD for Wetlands 1 through 5 in the project area. Based on the information in this report, if the Corps determines that the wetlands are not jurisdictional, ERO would appreciate a written determination of this request confirming that no further consultation under Section 404 is required. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 303-830-1188 or email. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Courtney Marne Biologist/Associate cc: Bill McDowell – Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC Mike Hart – Hart Environmental Attachments: Figures 1 and 2; Photo Log; Routine Wetland Determination Forms Project Area Prepared for: Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC File: 21_111 JD Figure 1.mxd (GS) September 28, 2021 ± Figure 1 Vicinity Map East Rigden Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2021 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. 0 1,500750Feet Location Pa t h : P : \ 2 1 _ 1 0 0 \ 2 1 _ 1 1 1 E a s t R i g d e n \ M a p s \ J D \ 2 1 _ 1 1 1 J D F i g u r e 1 . m x d Section 28, T7N, R68W; 6th PM UTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 498411mE, 4487587mN Longitude 105.018765°W, Latitude 40.539032°N USGS Fort Collins, CO Quadrangle Larimer County, Colorado && & && & & !. !.!. !. !.!.!. !. !. FossilCreekReservoirInlet Ziegler Road East Horsetooth Road Note: Wetlands abutting Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet were not included in delineation. DP9 DP8 DP7 DP6 DP4 DP3 DP2 DP1 DP5 Wetland 3 Wetland 2 Wetland 5 Wetland 1 Wetland 4P5 P1 PP4 P6 P7 P3P2 Prepared for: Cottonwood Land and Farms LLC File: 21_111 JD Figure 2.mxd (GS) November 3, 2021 ± Figure 2 Existing Conditions East Rigden 0 15075Feet Path: P:\21_100\21_111 East Rigden\Maps\JD\21_111 JD Figure 2.mxd Image Source: MaxarVivid©, June 26, 2020 !.Data Point &Photo Point (PP) Limit of Delineation Upland Vegetated Swale Ordinary High Water Mark (0.004 ac) Wetland (WL) (0.262 ac) Project Area Photo Log Southwestern Portion of East Rigden Jurisdictional Determination Request April 12, 2021 Photo 1 - Grazed uplands in the project area. View is to the southwest. Photo 2 - Spring feeding Wetland 3. View is to the south. Photo Log Southwestern Portion of East Rigden Jurisdictional Determination Request April 12, 2021 Photo 3 - Seep from Wetland 3 flowing east. View is to the northeast. Photo 4 - Connection of Wetland 3 and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet. View is to the northeast. Photo Log Southwestern Portion of East Rigden Jurisdictional Determination Request April 12, 2021 Photo 5 - Old stock pond fed by seepage. View is to the south. Photo 6 - Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet. View is to the northwest. Photo Log Southwestern Portion of East Rigden Jurisdictional Determination Request April 12, 2021 Photo 7 - Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet. View is to the southeast. 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: East Rigden (southwestern area)Fort Collins, Larimer Apr 12 2021 Cottonwood Land & Farms CO DP1 C Marne, E Clary Section 28, T7N, R68W; 6th PM Shallow swale Concave 2 G 40.537924 N -105.019666 W NAD 83 Larimer-Stoneham complex, 30 to 10 percent slopes N N N N N N Area is mowed regularly 30 x 30 60 60 Yes FACPopulus deltoides 0 0 0 0 3 9 5 x 5 0 0 Rumex crispus Taraxacum officinale 65 8 1 74 Yes No No UPL FAC FAC 1 5 14 3.5 26 Bromus inermis 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: DP1 0-6 6-18 10YR 5/2 10YR6 /3 100 100 ClLo ClLo No hydrology indicators present 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: East Rigden (southwestern area)Fort Collins, Larimer Apr 12 2021 Cottonwood Land & Farms CO DP2 C Marne, E Clary Section 28, T7N, R68W; 6th PM Depression Concave 5 G 40.538690 N -105.019238 W NAD 83 Larimer-Stoneham complex, 30 to 10 percent slopes PEM N N N N N N Wetland 1. Former stock watering pond, isolated , no surface connection to Waters of the U.S. 2 3 66 Schoenoplectus pungens Poa pratensis Pascopyrum smithii Phalaris arundicea 40 15 5 10 15 85 Yes Yes No No Yes UPL OBL FACU FACU FACW 15 Bromus inermis 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: DP2 0-8 8-14 10YR 3/2 10YR 4/2 100 93 7.5YR 4/6 7 RC Matrix Clay Clay redox seen 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: East Rigden (southwestern area)Fort Collins, Larimer Apr 12 2021 Cottonwood Land & Farms CO DP3 C Marne, E Clary Section 28, T7N, R68W; 6th PM Slope of depression Concave 5 G 40.538679 N -105.019242 W NAD 83 Larimer-Stoneham complex, 30 to 10 percent slopes N N N N N N Schoenoplectus pungens Pascopyrum smithii 30 5 65 100 Yes No Yes UPL OBL FACU 0 Bromus inermis Paired upland point for Wetland 1 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: DP3 No hydric soils assumed based on dominance of upland vegetation and lack of wetland hydrology indicators. No wetland hydrology indicators present. 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: East Rigden (southwestern area)Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land & Farms CO DP4 C Marne, E Clary Section 28, T7N, R68W; 6th PM Depression Concave 3 G 40.538913 N -105.018662 W NAD 83 Larimer-Stoneham complex, 30 to 10 percent slopes PEM N Y N N N N Downslope of likely a historic stock pond in a depressional area. 1 1 100 Schoenoplectus pungens Y N FACW OBL Phalaris arundinacea 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 0-12 10 YR 2/2 100 SaClLo Rock restrictive layer 12 Hydric soils assumed, disturbed soils consisting of lots of rocks & pebbles. Wetland vegetation and hydrology present. 12 4 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: East Rigden (southwestern area)Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land & Farms CO DP5 C Marne, E Clary Section 28, T7N, R68W; 6th PM Bank None 3 G 40.538840 -105.018625 NAD 83 Larimer-Stoneham complex, 30 to 10 percent slopes N N N N N N Schoenoplectus pungens Pascopyrum smithii Phalaris arundinacea Y N Y N UPL OBL FACU FACW Bromus inermis Paired upland point for Wetland 2. 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 No hydric soils assumed based on dominance of upland vegetation and lack of wetland hydrology indicators. 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: East Rigden (southwestern area)Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land & Farms CO DP6 C Marne, E Clary Section 28, T7N, R68W; 6th PM Swale Concave 1 G 40.538713 N -105.018155 W NAD 83 Larimer-Stoneham complex, 30 to 10 percent slopes PEM N N N N N N Phalaris arundinacea Lactuca serriola Cirsium arvense Rumex crispus Y N N N N OBL FACW FAC FACW FAC Typha angustifolia Wetland 3, swale. 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: DP6 Hydric soils assumed based on dominance of hydrophytic vegetation and presence of hydrology indicators. 1 rea inundated with 1 inch of water at time of site visit. 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: East Rigden (southwestern area)Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land & Farms CO DP7 C Marne, E Clary Section 28, T7N, R68W; 6th PM Bank none 0 G 40.538739 N -105.018163 W NAD 83 Larimer-Stoneham complex, 30 to 10 percent slopes N N N N N N Upland adjacent to cattail swale. Cirsium arvense Y N UPL FACU Bromus inermis 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: DP7 No hydric soils assumed due to lack of hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology indicators No indicators present 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: East Rigden (southwestern area)Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land & Farms CO DP8 C Marne, E Clary Section 28, T7N, R68W; 6th PM Slope Convex 2 G 40.538731 N -105.017405 W NAD 83 Larimer-Stoneham complex, 30 to 10 percent slopes N N N N N N Downstream of wetland 3- break between wetland and fossil creek inlet. Upland area. 1 2 50 0 35 70 20 Poa pratensis Phalaris arundicacea Y N Y UPL FACU FACW 275 365 3.8 Bromus inermis 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: DP8 No hydric soils assumed due to lack of hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology indicators 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: East Rigden (southwestern area) Fort Collins, Larimer Cottonwood Land & Farms CO DP9 C Marne, E Clary Section 28, T7N, R68W; 6th PM Slope None 3 G 40.537987 N -105.017845 W NAD 83 Larimer-Stoneham complex, 30 to 10 percent slopes PEM N N N N N N Wetland on slope supported by seepage. Abutting uplands similar to those adjacent to Wetland 2. Schoenoplectus pungens Bromus inermis Panicum virgatum Y N N N FACW OBL UPL FAC Phalaris arundicea 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: DP9 0-6 6-12 10 YR 3/2 10 YR 3/1 100 98 7.5 YR 5/8 2 C PL ClLo ClLo Redox dark surface indicators Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix E Strauss Lake Master Plan EAST COMMUNITY PARK BOXELDER DITCH 50’ SETBACK FROM DITCH & 100’ SETBACK FROM FLAT IRON POND (TYPICAL) 50’ SETBACK FROM DITCH (TYPICAL) FOSSIL CREEK INLET DITCH RIGDEN RESERVOIR PERCHERON DRIVE (COLLECTOR) HORSETOOTH ROAD ZI E G L E R R O A D ZI E G L E R R O A D WILLIAM NEAL PKWY. (COLLECTOR) SILVER POPLAR PARK MORRISON PARK POLLINATOR PARK DETENTION DETENTION FLATIRON POND 1:200 0’ 200’ 300’ 400’ LOT CALCULATIONS LARGE TOWNHOMES ...................................................................... 338 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ...................................................................... 82 CARRIAGE HOME LOTS .................................................................. 124 SMALL TOWNHOMES ..................................................................... 132 SMALL TOWNHOMES ..................................................................... 60 SMALL TOWNHOMES ..................................................................... 36 MEDIUM TOWNHOMES .................................................................... 32 CSU / COMMUNITY / WORK FORCE APARTMENTS ..................... 204 PAIRED HOMES ................................................................................ 144 McDERMOTT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ........................................ 144 TOTAL ................................................................................................ 1,296 LOTS LEGEND LARGE TOWNHOMES SINGLE FAMILY LOTS CARRIAGE HOME LOTS SMALL TOWNHOMES SMALL TOWNHOMES SMALL TOWNHOMES MEDIUM TOWNHOMES CSU / COMMUNITY / WORK FORCE APARTMENTS PAIRED HOMES McDERMOTT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMERCIAL (~48,956 SF) S T R A U S S L A K E S M A S T E R P L A N M A S T E R P L A N Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix F Response from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the East Rigden Eagle Protection Plan for Debris Management. ! "#$ %&'$ (! ! )*+ ,-$./0$ 123214156671890 &<= ) <$< $><? ,?$ /%B:"C?! $ &D?! $ ,E. ) '' ,?$,> /FC **(G> ' <)*+ ,-$.&C **(G> ' <)*+ ,-$./F0 ! G<'AG<' 'IJ DK<'46)- I,?$ L& DK<'46)- I,?$ /F; II0?%$+ IIA@$''$ +$$EM E EN< MM@O)- I,?$ L&+K ?EOOO)- I,?$ /FC **P?K+<Q&P?K+<QD+)$>'I$$!,?$ /FRK ' STI < <86O)?$ ? ', '/F: . "C>I &C>I (: . )*+ ,-$./FR II "T<SH&-<S( (+ II )*+ ,-$./#K I$< - ' E*<$ $>' E $><$<- Q' $ ,%$ $'?I ?!I ! $<$\ ''?K ' >< ?$- Q 'K E < E. < *S'K IEE< '?K 'K < ,klimnoppobqpe^rfq_^sk`p^tpo`bs_fbj`ku^mkolvfbfq^n^bpwrflpaon^k|`ibphz|}~xoltill^xpeolyk`€^tp ope‚i_o^a^^ƒ^ljk`n|}r`ikobopof_k^t`nn^bxfpo`bol_^fbobqp` fkxlb`pyikliobqfbobtox^bfg^y^knopfppeolpon^~k^fl`bobq ^bpobp``ikobopof_k^t`nn^bxfpo`bc^kobqpe^qioxfbt^ob`ik…fpo`bf_†f_xrfq_^vfbfq^n^bp‡iox^_ob^lf__hpe^xolpfbt^p`ftpoƒ^^fq_^b^lplˆnf€`koph`jpe^yk`€^tp o__m^`ipmijj^k~‹tpoƒopo^l opeobpe^‰‰Šj``pb^lpmijj^k o__m^t`bxitp^x`iplq_^b^lpobql^fl`b~k^ni_poy_^f_p^kbfp^b^lpl opeobt_`l^yk`Œonoph`jpe^yk`€^tpfk^f~rfƒ^m^^b`ttiyo^xzfl`jb` zb`b^`jpe^b^lpefƒ^m^^bx^p^knob^xq_^b^lppefpeflm^^b`ttiyo^xn`lpwk^t^bp_h b^lpŽ ol_`tfp^xonfp^_hŠ~‘’no_^jk`ny_fbb^xyk`€^tpftpoƒopo^l~€^tpx^loqbj^fpik^lony_^n^bpponobqfbxxolpfbt^nopoqfpo`bn^flikl^floqbojotfbpy`kpo`b`jy`p^bpof_xolpikmfbt^k^_fp^xp`pe^y_fbb^xyl~€^tpfk^feflfbinm^k`j^Œolpobqxolpikmfbt^lobyk`Œonophp`pe^b^lqfbxb^lpobqmf_x^fq_^lobpeolq^b^kf_fk^fefƒ^le` bfeoqe_^ƒ^t^p`einfb“t`blpkitpo`bftpoƒopo^l~›œš—™žŸ^ ^^g_h w‘pon^ly^k ^^g ^fq_^b^lplikƒ^h^jj`kplp`x^p^knob^o ! " # $ " # % " (% ) '- +%.) 123 4.56 7 9 #" %DACEFGCDACHCF@FCI@JFKCILK@MNDVWXCGFJDFVYWZ[Z\]^Y_`adWS@MDIfEg@MDIheDMdCAIedHijILk@lN?WqDKeI@AErDKeI@ALUDldIHIgDgCLK@LJINsqCthuJAgCFHijILk@lEqCthuJAgCFHijILk@lNsCAgDwxMrTDFg[YHkMDdwLK@MyEMrTDFg[YHkMDdwLK@MNsBdwwaKf@jCwwoz@{@Aj@@U|DA}}HkMDdwLK@MyEjTMKU}}}HkMDdwLK@MNsqCt~KTjDFE~KTjDFrjH@Jgw@@eLK@MNs€F‚Y}HK@MKDIgLACgNv?pˆ|‰?CŠJCIgi@FSCKTAdKDwˆIIdIgDAKCŒ‘Ž“ ”• – — ˜™•š š›œŽ ˜ š™šžŸ ¡Ž –‘›œ š”“ ™š• –’ –¢ š¥ ” ”£‘œœ‘–Œ ”œŽ¤š•• Ž¥š”˜ ”£¦CAIedWU§FCld@JIwVGV§T@ACWz@{@Aj@@U|DAUDAUXDFMI||zLWj@JwUwdeCg@K@M§CAgDK¨ld¨CIgTDgjCFCl@wJAgDFdwVKCDICU@AfCKCMGCFZYWZ[Z]WjTCAK@Ak§@gCA¨DwdM§DKgIg@GDwUCDkwCIL|DAUMDADkCMCAgDK¨ld¨CIdAKwJUCkFdAj@@UVUCGFdI@AgTCvDIg?dkUCA§F@§CFgVx§F@rCKgDFCDyjTdKTdIw@KDgCUjdFCx`@JUFCy?dlCF©@@U§wDdALv?ª?CI@JFKCITDI§FC§DFCUgTCD{DKTCUgCKTAgTDgdAKwJUCIgTCi@ww@jdAk^JAU@iGDwUCDkwCDK¨ldgV@ADAUACDFgTC§F@rCKgDFCD ! " #$ % & &'$& '$$#& &'( )'* $+ , - '- ."""' - '- .///0 " + '/// - 3 6 3 .+ 9 + "' Ecological Characterization Study Strauss Lakes Residential Development Fort Collins, Colorado ERO Project #24-115 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix G Natural Habitat and Features Potentially Occurring in or near the Project Area Noxious weeds Y Hairy willowherb (List A); Canada thistle, leafy spurge, musk thistle, and Russian olive (List B); and field bindweed and common mullein (List C). Y One pond ( Pond) and four ditches that support wetlands were observed in the project area including Rigden Farm Outfall, the FCO, Boxelder Ditch, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet as well as five additional wetland areas (Wetland 1 through Wetland 5). Flatiron Pond would likely be considered nonjurisdictional. Rigden Farm Outfall, the FCO, Boxelder Ditch, and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet appear to have a direct hydrologic surface connection to the Cache la Poudre; therefore, these features would likely be considered WOTUS and regulated by the Corps. Based on an approved jurisdictional determination from the Corps provided on December 13, 2021 for Wetland 1 through Wetland 5, Wetland 3 and Wetland 4 were determined to abut and discharge into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal and are, therefore, jurisdictional WOTUS. Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 are livestock ponds excavated in uplands, and Wetland 5 occurs on a hillslope; These features do not have a surface connection to Wetland 3 or Wetland 4 or the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet canal, and, therefore, are not jurisdictional WOTUS Significant remnants of native communities Potential habitats and known locations of rare, Potential habitats and known locations of rare, threatened, or endangered species of wildlife potential for tricolored bat roosting 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 Action Plan. communal roost sites, and key concentration areas the project area. Consultation with CPW and the Service beginning in 2009 has indicated that due to historic and on-going human disturbance, site-specific reasonable disturbance buffers extend from the Cache La Poudre Concentration areas for nesting and migratory Concentration areas for Migratory songbird concentration areas Key nesting areas for grassland birds Mule deer winter concentration areas