Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReports - Environmental - 03/27/2025 CTL THOMPSON Founded in 1971 BUFFER MITIGATION PLAN 302 CONIFER STREET FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 Prepared For: THE SZANTON COMPANY 720 South Colorado Boulevard 13t" Floor, North Tower Denver, Colorado 80246 Project No. FC11009.000-232 March 27, 2025 CTLIThompson, Inc. Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Glenwood Springs, Pueblo, Summit County— Colorado Cheyenne, Wyoming and Bozeman, Montana TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY..................................................................................1 2. SITE CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................1 3. REGULATIONS AND IMPACTS FROM DEVELOPMENT.................................................2 4. BUFFER PROTECTION MEASURES ................................................................................4 5. BUFFER MITIGATION MEASURES...................................................................................6 6. LONG-TERM MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT.....................................10 7. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE................................................................................................14 8. LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................15 ATTACHMENTS FIGURE 1 - PROPERTY MAP ATTACHMENT A: FACWET FCI SCORECARD 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY As requested, CTLIThompson, Inc. (CTLIT) has previously performed an Ecological Char- acterization Study per Fort Collins Land Use Code Article 5 Section 6 (D) (1) at 302 Conifer Street in Fort Collins, Colorado.The site consists of approximately 1.17 acres located on Larimer County Parcel No. 9701311013 and generally falls within the Northeast '/4 of the Southwest '/4 of Town- ship 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6t" Principal Meridian. There is a drainage ditch that runs along the eastern side of the property (outside of property boundaries). Per Fort Collins Land Use Code, this Buffer Mitigation Plan is required for construction within 50 feet of the top of the bank. 2. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is largely flat and rectangular in shape. It is approximately 1.17 acres, bordered by Conifer Street to the south and Blue Spruce Drive to the west. A drainage ditch runs along the eastern border, outside of property boundaries. There is an existing warehouse to the north. The ground surface largely consists of bare ground and low-lying, non-native grasses and emergent herbaceous plants, largely Bromus inermis. There are bare patches and prairie dog bur- rows present on the property. During our Ecological Characterization Study, we did not identify utilization by sensitive or specially valued species, nor did we identify special habitat features on the property. We did not perform a wetland delineation on the drainage ditch east of the property, and the overall natural habitat value was deemed to be non-functioning to functioning-impaired as a part of our investigation; however, for the purpose of this mitigation plan, the ditch is to be addressed and mitigated as a wetland corridor and natural habitat per City of Fort Collins Regulations. THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 1 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 j s 0� . a - IP Conifer St - Approximate- ' projectsite¶ n s - Aerial Photograph courtesy of Google Maps. Site Description: • The NE '/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 01, Township 7 North, Range 69 West • USGS Quadrangle: Fort Collins 30'x60' 0 40.6031, -105.0710 (WGS84) • Estimated Nearest Relatively Permanent Water (RPW): Cache la Poudre River 3. REGULATIONS AND IMPACTS FROM DEVELOPMENT The Clean Water Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1971 to protect physical, bio- logical, and chemical quality of"Waters of the U.S." The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Program administers and enforces Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under Section 404, a Corps permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The Corps defines Waters of the U.S. as all navigable waters and their tribu- taries, all interstate waters and their tributaries, all wetlands adjacent to these waters, and all impoundments of these waters. The Corps will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of traditionally navigable waters that are relatively permanent (e.g., typically three months). The Corps will assert jurisdic- tion over those adjacent wetlands that have continuous surface connection to such tributaries THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 2 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 (e.g., they are not separated by uplands, a berm, dike, or similar features). It should be noted that regulations surrounding WOTUS have recently been in flux. The Corps jurisdiction of the "Waters of the U.S." changed in 2006 as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. The June 5, 2007, Agency Guidance document indicates the Corps would assert jurisdiction over all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters, which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, as well as those waters with a "significant nexus" to them. However, the Rapanos decision was overturned on May 25, 2023, in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, the Corps will only assert jurisdiction according to the Sackett decision, which outlines that waters and wetlands must be relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water, or connected to other waters through a surface connection. As a result of this decision, on July 6, 2023, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division (CDPHE-WQCD) released CW-17: Enforcement of Unpermitted Dredge and Activity in State Waters. This policy was intended as a temporary measure to assert jurisdiction over"Sackett gap waters," or "State Waters," which are loosely defined as those wa- ters and wetlands in Colorado that were previously regulated under the Rapanos decision but became unregulated as a result of the Sackett decision. On May 6'", 2024, the Colorado Legis- lature passed HB24-1379, a bill designed to present a more permanent policy. This bill is very similar, albeit more permanent and detailed, to CW-17 and is likely to be implemented in 2025; until then, CW-17 is still in effect. Therefore, waters and wetlands fall under the definitions and jurisdictions of the Sackett decision (for Waters of the U.S., Corps jurisdiction) and the CW-17 Implementation Policy (for State Waters, State of Colorado jurisdiction). Regardless of federal jurisdictional status, development in wetland areas must observe local regulatory policies as well. The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code outlines requirements for buffer zones surrounding natural habitats and features, including wetlands and drainage ditches. All construction and development activities have the potential to cause indirect impacts, which may include, but may not be limited to, noise, pollution, dust, changes to hydrologic regime and infiltration/evapotranspiration, shade, and general encroachment. Proposed development at the site is in accordance with local zoning and existing development in the area. There already is and has historically been residential development in the area of the site. As discussed in this plan, THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 3 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 11111 regulations and best management practices regarding stormwater management and spill preven- tion and control should be followed to best protect on-site water resources. Additionally, local regulations and best management practices to reduce impacts during construction should be fol- lowed. With these measures in mind, as well as proposed mitigation measures, we do not believe construction and development at the property will cause undue impacts at the property beyond those that have already occurred from local residential development. We did not identify wetlands, Waters of the U.S., or State Waters on the property during our Ecological Characterization Study, dated November 26, 2024, revised January 24, 2025. The Study should be read in its entirety for details. A drainage ditch was identified off-property along the eastern property boundary. City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Article 5, Division 5.6, Section E dictates that buffer zones shall be established surrounding natural habitats and features. This includes drainage ditches as identified east of the property, particularly if they may be used as wildlife corridors. We previously assessed the value of this ditch for use as a wildlife corridor and found the overall condition and value to be non-functioning to be functioning-impaired, per an abbreviated application of the Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands (FACWet) Method, applied only where relevant for the upland buffer and wildlife corridor purposes. However, the City has requested a 50 foot Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) for the ditch in accordance with the Land Use Code. Paving of parking areas and establishment of landscaped areas are proposed within the 50 foot NHBZ; therefore, we propose mitigation through enhancement and manage- ment of remaining unpaved area within the 50 foot NHBZ to prevent a net loss of function of the NHBZ. 4. BUFFER PROTECTION MEASURES Best management practices and standards for protection during construction as outlined in detail in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code will be used to protect the drainage ditch and NHBZ from potential impacts due to nearby grading, construction, and equipment movement to the greatest extent possible. The limits of development will be established and clearly marked in the field prior to com- mencement of excavation or equipment tracking. Tracking of equipment (vehicles and excava- tors) will be minimized within the NHBZ areas wherever possible and will not occur at all within the drainage ditch, which will be outside the limits of development. As work is being performed within the NHBZ, the majority of equipment access will be from west. Tracking within the buffer THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 4 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 11111 area will be minimized to the greatest extent possible, and cribbing will be utilized where neces- sary to minimize soil compaction and impacts to vegetation. Soil and vegetation disturbance will only occur in areas that are necessary to proposed construction plans, as shown in the Land- scape Plan. When possible, we recommend that tracking mostly occurs in the winter when soils are frozen and most species' breeding seasons are not active. Furthermore, we recommend machinery within the buffer area moves only in straight lines wherever possible to minimize damages due to tracks turning. On-site safety and spill prevention measures will be taken during construction to prevent releases of hazardous materials, such as fuels and oils, into the wetlands and buffer areas. Maintenance and fueling of equipment will not occur on-site. Equipment will be properly main- tained and free of leaks. Site grading and earthwork within the NHBZ will be timed in such a way to minimize soil disturbance and damage to vegetation. Grading within the NHBZ will not occur during heavy snowmelt or periods of heavy rain when the soil is soft and loose, and vegetation is highly sus- ceptible to trampling damage. If high runoff events occur during construction, the site will be continuously assessed to ensure the effectiveness of erosion control and to prevent areas of high velocity flows. We recommend best management practices are followed regarding timing of construc- tion and removal of vegetation to minimize impacts to local species. This includes, but may not be limited to, removing vegetation outside of breeding season for migratory birds (in this case, particularly ground nesting birds), following Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) best manage- ment practices for removal of prairie dogs, if present, and minimizing impacts to local waterways through timing and erosion control measures. For a higher level of assurance, we can perform a migratory bird clearance visit immediately (within 1 week) prior to the start of construction. Erosion control measures will be in place between construction areas and the drainage ditch. Erosion control measures will be placed to delineate work areas from non-work areas within the NHBZ. Erosion control will include 2 layers: construction fences and silt fences or straw wattles. Straw wattles are preferred in areas closer to the ditch to reduce ground disturb- ance. These measures will remain in place and be maintained in effective operating conditions THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 5 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 11111 both during construction and following completion of construction until monitoring at the site indi- cates that revegetation has established enough to prevent erosion and sediment drift. Per City code, we can provide ongoing monitoring of construction activities and erosion control as it per- tains to the buffer and ditch. 5. BUFFER MITIGATION MEASURES According to USACE, there are several different types of compensatory mitigation that can be performed when wetland and buffer areas are impacted by development. Mitigation op- tions include rehabilitation, re-establishment, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation. The goal of mitigation is to prevent net loss of function provided by wetlands and/or their buffers. This may not always equate to the same square footage of wetlands or buffer areas as pre-con- struction, so long as near-original processes and function are retained. For the purpose of this mitigation plan, the drainage ditch is to be addressed and mitigated as a wetland habitat, and the City of Fort Collins has defined the buffer zone as 50 feet from the top of the bank. Proposed mitigation at the site as a part of this Buffer Mitigation Plan includes enhance- ment within existing upland buffer area. Following the completion of construction, areas that were disturbed during construction will be re-graded to permanent contours, as needed. As previously discussed, erosion control methods will be in use following re-grading to prevent sedimentation of the drainage ditch. In conjunction with erosion control, all disturbed areas will be reseeded. 5.1. Vegetation Vegetation introduced within the NHBZ will be native and originate from weed-free seed mixes and containers. A plant schedule, as proposed by Studio Terra, indicates that species within the NHBZ will include the following: Planted in beds via container stock: - Cliffbush (Jamesia americana) - Creeping three-leaf sumac (Rhus trilobata) - Sensation Boxelder (Acer negundo) - Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii) - Bigtooth Maple (Acer grandidentatum) THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 6 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 - Creeping Western Sand Cherry (Prunus besseyi) Seeded via Upland Seed Mix: - Plains coreopsis (Coreopsis tinctoria) - Purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea) - Indian blanket flower (Gaillardia aristata) - Rocky Mountain penstemon (Penstemon strictus) - Mexican hat (Ratibida columnifera) - Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) - Sideouts grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) - Buffalograss (Bouteloua dactyloides) - Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) - Bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) - Prairie Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha) - Green needlegrass (Nassella viridula) - Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) - Western Wheat (Pascopyrum smithii) - Sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) We have reviewed the proposed species within the NHBZ and found species to be na- tive and approved by the City of Fort Collins, and requiring very low to medium water use. CTLIT is not a Landscape Architect, nor are we experts in plant management in planted, con- trolled, urban settings. We defer to Studio Terra on the selection of these species for use and likelihood of success in an urban environment. Mixes should be applied at the rates recom- mended in the Landscape Plan. We do not believe that selected non-native species located out- side the NHBZ are likely to be invasive and/or negatively impact the function of the buffer or the success of native species. We do believe these species will still provide low-lying ground cover for wildlife and/or promote pollinator use regardless of native status. Since the property is cur- rently made up of largely non-native invasive grasses (largely Bromus inermis) with bare patches, we still believe this Landscape Plan to be an overall enhancement of existing condi- tions, satisfying one type of mitigation per USACE and providing a net improvement of buffer function. Per the Landscape Plan, areas within the NHBZ are largely intended to be very low to THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 7 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 11111 low water use, suitable to the region. Proposed vegetation is also perennial and/or woody, re- quiring little to no long-term re-planting. As noted in the Plan, trees and shrubs noted on the Plan are also subject to approval from the City of Fort Collins forester. Noxious and invasive species should be expected following development, as they tend to be aggressive and outcompete native species following a disturbance. Establishing native species over noxious, invasive, and non-native species is key to the success of mitigation goals. Therefore, integrated pest management (IPM) methods will be implemented. Mechanical weed control will be the preferred method, as the City would like to encourage pollinator survival par- tially by reducing chemical weed control. Mechanical control will consist of hand-weeding, mow- ing, or scraping. We believe this is a viable method since the NHBZ is a relatively small area. However, it should be noted that some weed species (such as Convolvulus arvensis) do not re- spond well to purely mechanical control methods. If we observe dominance or spreading behav- ior within the NHBZ of a species that we believe will not be meaningfully reduced through purely mechanical means, we will discuss targeted chemical control of that species as a part of adap- tive management strategy. Targeted chemical control will consist of selection of herbicides spe- cific to the problematic weed (i.e., pre- or post-emergent, selective, broad-leaved or grass, etc.), and will be applied only through hand-spraying methods away from surface water. Assessment of weed cover and management of weeds is discussed more in Sections 5.5 and 6 of this re- port. 5.2. Soils We anticipate that the largest impact to soils within the NHBZ on the site will be from compaction due to equipment movement and paving. Cribbing will be used whenever possible within the NHBZ to reduce compaction. In order to further reduce impacts due to compaction, we recommend clear field delinea- tion (i.e., construction fencing) of work areas prior to mobilization of equipment to the site, pri- marily to keep equipment away from the drainage ditch. Equipment operation within the NHBZ should be limited only to designated areas, i.e., within proposed paving areas. Furthermore, if equipment is to track within the NHBZ on the easter edge of the site (outside of proposed pav- ing areas), we recommend equipment with wider tires or tracks, inflated to recommended rates or lower. A larger footprint/tire surface area will promote shallower compaction. Additionally, THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 8 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 11111 whenever possible, equipment should not be tracked within the NHBZ (except within proposed paving areas) when the site is significantly wet. Compaction will increase in wet conditions. We understand that planting soil mix is proposed within landscaped areas, and soil below landscap- ing areas will be scarified prior to backfill with planting soil, which will further reduce impacts due to compaction. Plant species with deeper, more hardy roots will also help to break up com- pacted soils over time. 5.3. Hydrology and Geomorphology Based on proposed construction, we do not anticipate significant impacts to hydrology or geomorphology within the drainage ditch. Selected plants, per the Landscape Plan, largely re- quire very low to medium water usage. We anticipate some increased runoff due to increased area of paved ground surface; however, we anticipate most, if not all, will be intercepted by landscaped areas. We presume the Civil Engineer has accounted for reduced infiltrative sur- faces and runoff as a part of the site plan. 5.4. Wildlife Use We do not believe it is likely that the drainage ditch or the subject property are of signifi- cant or important use for rare, threatened, endangered, sensitive, or specially valued species. The drainage ditch may serve as a connective travel corridor; however, per our Ecological Im- pact Assessment, we believe it is generally non-functioning to functioning impaired for this pur- pose. Per the Landscape Plan and City Code, fencing associated with the project is designed to be compatible with the ecological character and wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature — in this case, proposed fencing along the NHBZ shall allow for small animals to pass and utilize the NHBZ for movement, foraging, and cover. This should overall improve the property's function for migration and small wildlife movement. Note that our Ecological Impact Assessment and this Mitigation Plan do not include comprehensive migration studies. 5.5. Pollinators It is preferred by the City of Fort Collins that the NHBZ and planted areas are managed to facilitate pollinator habitat. Therefore, integrated pest management should only include regu- lar hand weeding (bi-weekly weeding is recommended per the Code). Chemical herbicides, pes- ticides, and fabric weed barriers should not be used unless further review deems them neces- THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 9 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 11111 sary; pest management should be primarily by hand. If mulch is used in beds, it should be shal- low and monitored for frequent replacement. Perennial herbs and grasses should not be trimmed earlier than mid-April. They should be trimmed to a height of 6-8 inches and left in place until the next growing season. Small bunches of stems and fallen leaves should be left and/or dispersed in beds. 6. LONG-TERM MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Per City of Fort Collins Code, the site is to be monitored for at least 3 years following construction to ensure re-establishment of vegetation and assess success of mitigation efforts. A reference site will be established for comparison later in the process. Long term performance standards to be assessed will include overall weed control, erosion and stability, establishment of introduced vegetation, and overall performance of the drainage ditch. The City has also re- quired an overall success rate of 80% for all planted or seeded vegetation on the property. We also recommend that sediment control (i.e., silt fences) measures remain in place until monitor- ing indicates that construction has been concluded, and vegetation has established sufficiently to minimize or eliminate sediment drift into the drainage ditch. It is our opinion that other measures currently in place (i.e., chain link fencing or construction fencing) can be removed fol- lowing completion of construction. Based on local climate, we believe long-term monitoring should occur at least twice per year—once in the spring during the local growing/planting season and once later in the sum- mer/fall prior to vegetation die-back. Erosion control measures should also be reassessed fol- lowing extreme weather events, as needed, to ensure effectiveness and observe for damage. CTLIT can perform these monitoring services and provide progress reports. Per USACE guide- lines, the beginning of the growing season will be indicated when the buffer area exhibits at least two of the following indicators of biological activity: 1. Emergence of herbaceous plants from the ground 2. Appearance of new growth from vegetative crowns (e.g., in graminoids, bulbs, and corms) 3. Celeoptile/cotyledon emergence from seeds 4. Bud burst on woody plants (i.e., some green foliage is visible between spreading bud scales) THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 10 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 5. Emergence or elongation of leaves on woody plants Specific parameters to be assessed within the buffer and mitigation areas during long- term monitoring will include overall percent ground cover of vegetation, overall percent weed cover, and the presence or absence of erosion channels. Visual water quality assessments of the surface water within the drainage ditch will also be performed to assess for abnormal sedi- mentation or chemical changes. The City has also required an overall success rate of 80% for all planted or seeded vegetation on the property. During monitoring, the buffer will be assessed for success based on a rapid version of the Colorado Department of Transportation's Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands Method, otherwise known as the FACWet Method. The FACWet Method provides a standard- ized, formalized process in which professional judgement is made on the condition of eight eco- logical forcing factors, or Variables. Variable scoring is calibrated parallel to the academic grad- ing scale, i.e., 0.9 to 1 for an "A", 0.8 to 0.9 for a "B," and so on. Variables are then weighted to calculate Functional Capacity Indices, which are then averaged to calculate a composite Func- tional Capacity Index (FCI). Evidence supporting ratings will be based on visibly detectable stressors or their indicators, reinforced with readily available data and information. We believe this method will provide a consistent, repeatable, and concise summary of mitigation progress and performance throughout the project. In order to effectively implement FACWet Method, the existing assessment area (the area of proposed impact) and the proposed mitigation areas must be characterized pre-impact in order to establish baseline conditions for later comparison. Therefore, we have calculated a composite FCI score for the existing pre-construction conditions of the off-site drainage and on- site NHBZ according to the table below. The Method was applied to the drainage ditch itself with the on-site buffer area as an upland inclusion to assess the overall function of the off-site ditch as it pertains to impacts to the NHBZ on-property, since buffer zone quality and function is known to impact quality and function of natural features. The ditch itself is off-property, and no direct impact is proposed. THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 11 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 TABLE I FACWet Score Card VARIABLE SCORE TABLE ° m0 Variable 1: Habitat Connectivity(Connect) 0.6 J 060 C m Variable 2: Contributing Area(CA) 0.6 m � Variable 3: Water Source(Source) 0.6 T O a Variable 4: Water Distribution (Dist) 0.5 Variable 5: Water Outflow(Outflow) 0.5 Variable 6: Geomorphology(Geom) 0.6 16 in w Variable 7: Chemical Environment(Chem) 0.5 U = O Q Variable 8: Vegetation Structure and Complexity(Veg) 0.1 THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 12 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 Functional Capacity Indices Function 1 --Support of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat FCI V1 + V2 + (2 x V8) Total 0.6 + 0.6 + 0.2 + + + = 1.4 = 4 Function 2--Support of Characteristic Fish/aquatic Habitat (3 x V3) + (2 x V4) + (2 x V5) + V6 + V7 1.8 + + + 0.6 + 0.5 + =F4.9 9 Function 3--Flood Attenuation V2 + (2 x V3) + (2 x V4) + (2 x V5) + V6 + V8 0.6 + 1.2 + + 1� + 0.6 + 0.1 = 4.5 _ 9 Function 4--Short-and Long-term Water Storage V3 + (2 x V4t) + (2 x V5) V6 0.6 + + 1� + 0.6 + + = 3.2 _ 6 Function 5--Nutrient/Toxicant Removal (2 x V2) + (2 x V4) + V6 V7 1.2 + 1� + 0.6 + 0.5 + + =F3.3 I _ 6 Function 6--Sediment Retention/Shoreline Stabilization V2 + (2 x V6) + (2 x V8) 0.6 + 1.2 + 0.2 + + + =� _ 5 Function 7--Production Export/Food Chain Support V1 + (2 x V5) + V6 + V7 + (2 x V8) 0.6 + + 0.6 + 0.5 + 0.2 + =F 2.9 _ 7 Sum of Individual FCI Scores 3.28 Divide by the Number of Functions Scored _ 7 Composite FCI Score EiKli A Composite FCI Score of 0.47, or an T," indicates that the site is generally non-func- tioning and no longer possesses the basic criteria necessary to support natural habitat, native vegetation, or wetland functions. Mitigation goals will be measured and adapted based on this score, meaning restored, enhanced, or created wetlands as a part of the mitigation plan must THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 13 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 11111 achieve a score of 0.47 or higher in order to be considered successfully 1:1 mitigated. While the FACWet Method is typically applied to wetlands, the on-site uplands adjacent to the drainage ditch will be assessed as buffer inclusions in order to meet City of Fort Collins buffer mitigation requirements. In case concerns arise during long-term monitoring, or extreme weather events occur, adaptive management methods will be implemented. For example, the landscape architect will be contacted and integrated pest management practices will be applied if excessive weed cover is noted, or if vegetation is not observed to be re-establishing following the growing season. In- tegrated pest management may be implemented long-term to discourage weed growth and en- courage re-vegetation of seeded species. 7. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE The City of Fort Collins Code states that a financial guarantee shall be provided to en- sure site plan improvements as a part of a Buffer Mitigation Plan, as well as long-term monitor- ing, are met. The amount of the financial guarantee shall be based on an estimate derived from spreadsheets provided by the City. The term of the financial guarantee for the period following installation shall be a minimum of 3 years in order to ensure that successful, stable plant estab- lishment is achieved for all plantings. In compliance with this requirement, we have separately provided a proposal for long-term monitoring for the project compliance period, which includes future site visits, future quantitative assessment to measure mitigation success, and regular pro- gress reports. THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 14 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 8. LIMITATIONS This Buffer Mitigation Plan was performed in accordance with our Service Agreement No. FC-23-0408, dated October 20, 2023, and Contract Modification 2, dated February 26, 2025. The conclusions submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the Environmental Impact Study, subsequent research, and our experience in the area. We make no warranty, ex- press or implied. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. CTLITHOMPSON, INC. l —,/:?— Laura Mooney, P.W.S. Environmental Scientist Claire Asmussen Environmental Scientist Greg Crum, P.E. Principal Engineer, Summit County Division Manager cc: cszanton(r-.szantoncompany.com THE SZANTON COMPANY Page 15 of 15 302 CONIFER STREET CTLITHOMPSON PROJECT NO.FC11009.000-232 � 9 N - •' 9•�1i 'r. Y 9 Conifer Street — , — 4 owl Approximate Subject Property Boundary Drainage Ditch High Water Mark Approximate NHBZ Google Earth 2022 Not to Scale CTL I THOMPSON Figure 1 — Property Map CTLIT Project No.FC11009.000-232 Page 1 of 1 FACWet Version 3.0 April 2014 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARACTERIZATION Date o General Information Evaluation: Site Name or ID: .DO Z Corn Xf r S Cal(i✓I5,CO Project Name: 302 G'i -�6 r �. 404 or Other Permit / Tkz Application#: �l� Applicant Name: (6v" �vt v�',(�vu.evt�( �C I'•evc•h s-� Evaluator's professional position and Evaluator Name(s): L���` f Pk) organization: C I G liltri� soul, I✓l.L• Location Information: Site Coordinates Geographic �588 (Decimal Degrees,e.g., q0,&031 ,05.071� NAD 83:Datum Used ((�G 38.85,-104.96): Elevation q.cl 73° Location Information: 3fjo CU1' ex— ��.� � �o11;�S NE�c co"A -B, NU,-- 57p�-tt-cam Associated stream/water body name Stream Order: USGS Quadrangle f�&C�- C61�i�S 30 z x Map Scale: 1:24,000 1:100,000 Map: I ' �5?l� (Circle one) Other 1: Sub basin Name(8 Wetland �1,1 digit HUC): Ownership: 11,, Project Information: Potentially Impacted Wetlands Purpose of Mitigation;Pre-construction Evaluation This evaluation is BMitigation Project Wetland-�v� ev (check all Mitigation;Post-construction being performed at: Site applicable): Monitoring (Check applicable box) Other (Describe) Intent of Project: (Check all applicable) ❑ Restoration ® Enhancement ❑ Creation Total(Record Size of Wetland Involved: 1 (� Measured �o wed lav j ItM�1�/- �/, r 6 fr- Record Area,Check and Describe /v;' ac. �" �� Measurement Method Used) Estimated Assessment Area (AA)Size(Record Measured ac. ac. ac. ac. Area,check appropriate box. Additional spaces �,�� ac. are used to record acreage when more than one AA is included in a single assessment) Estimated ac. ac. ac. ac. Characteristics or Method used for AA boundary determination: &)Iofe r,b wek1,t,1d rS fa 1j4Ap,,,_Ck l QlVy1'v J �A) 10KO"ec4. Notes: /�t�i' G155�SSwt�.vt F �tp�Jl�'e,S 6vc1�,( f�j , OP4r -ya a g IvtCI, Park b� L PI- tj etOp tecJ Fir uaAl lP�,hve_ A46V1t�Vt Ci` at.c- op b v� ,� � � I'wt act ec/. ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION 1 Special Concerns Check all that apply Organic soils including Histosols or Histic Epipedons are Federally threatened or endangered species are present in the AA(i.e.,AA includes core fen habitat). SUSPECTED to occur in the AM Project will directly impact organic soil portions of the AA including areas possessing either Histosol soils or histic epipedons. Organic soils are known to occur anywhere within the El Species of concern according to the Colorado Natural contiguous wetland of which the AA is part. Heritage(CNHP)are known to occur in the AM The wetland is a habitat oasis in an otherwise dry or El The site is located within a potential conservation urbanized landscape? area or element occurrence buffer area as determined by CNHP? Federally threatened or endangered species are KNOWN Other special concerns(please describe) to occur in the AA? List Below. HYDROGEOMORPHIC SETTING AA wetland maintains its fundamental natural hydrogeomorphic characteristics ❑ AA wetland has been subject to change in HGM classes as a result of anthropogenic modification If the above is checked,please describe the original wetland type if discernable using the table below. ElAA wetland was created from an upland setting. Describe the hydrogeomorphic setting of the wetland by circling all conditions Current Conditions that apply, Water source Surface fl 7 Groundwater Precipitation Unknown Hydrodynamics nidirec Vertical Bi-directional Wetland Gradient 0-2% - °0 4-10% >10% #Surface Inlets Over-bank 0 1 2 3 >3 HGM Setting #Surface Outlets 0 2 3 >3 Geomorphic of)fc i1 � GU(VZ'K- Setting(Narrative Description. Include approx.stream order for riverine HGM class Riverine Slope Depressional Lacustrine Historical Conditions Water source Surfa o , Groundwater recipitationf Unknown Hydrodynamics Unidirection Vertical Previous Geomorphic wetland typology Setting(Narrative SWu�, /Jt ar-ht" L,Descrint l . Previous HGM Riverine Slope Depressional Lacustrine Class Notes(include information on the AA's HGM subclass and regional subclass): Cant U-v1A s- De) wale t ad D,/ 14at, e�r�a rf, cry 1. ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION 2 Vegetation Habitat Description US FINS habitat classification according as reported in Cowardin et al.(1979). System Subsystem Class I bubdass I Water Regime Other Modifiers %AA P gut 2 Novi- �eYs. �3 Littoral; Hypersaline(7) Lacustrine Limnoral Examples Eusaline(8); Rock Bot.(RB) Floating vascular; Temporarily flooded(A); Mixosaline(9);Fresh(0); Uncon Bottom(UB) Palustrine Paluslrine Rooted vascular; Saturated(B); Acid(a); Aquatic Bed(AB) Algal;Persistent; Seasonally flooded(C); Circumneutral(c); Rocky Shore(RS) Non-Persistent; Seas.-flood./sat.(E); Alkaline/calcareous(i); Uncon Shore(US) Broad-leaved deciduous; Semi-Perm.flooded(F); Organic(g);Mineral(n); Emergenl(EM) Intermittently exposed(G); Lower perennial; Needle-leaved evergreen; Beaver(b);Partially Riverine Upper perennial; Shrub-scrub(SS) Cobble-gravel; Artificially flooded(K); Drained/ditched(d); Intermittent Forested(FO) Sand;Mud; Sat./semiperm./Seas.(Y); Farmed(f); Organic Diked/impounded(h); Int.exposed/permenant(Z) Artificial Substrate(r); Spoil(s);Excavated(x) Site Map Draw a sketch map of the site including relevant portions of the wetland,AA boundary,structures,habitat classes, Scale:1 sq. and other significant features. _ � o t Variable 1: Habitat Connectivity The Habitat Connectivity Variable is described by two sub-variables—Neighboring Wetland and Riparian Habitat Loss and Barriers to Migration and Dispersal. These sub-variables were treated as independent variables in FACWet Version 2.0. The merging of these variables makes their structure more consistent with that of other composite variables in FACWet. The new variable configuration also makes this landscape variable more accurately reflect the interactions amongst aquatic habitats in Colorado's agricultural and urbanized landscapes,which have a naturally low density of wetlands. The two Habitat Connectivity Sub-variables are scored in exactly the same manner as their FACWet 2.0 counterparts,as described below. The Habitat Connectivity Variable score is simply the Iarithmetic average of the two sub-variable scores which is entered on the second page of the Variable 1 data form. If there is little or no wetland or riparian habitat in the Habitat Connectivity Envelope(defined below),then Sub-variable 1.1 is not scored. SV 1.1 - Neighboring Wetland and Riparian Habitat Loss (Do not score if few or no wetlands naturally exist in the HCE) This sub-variable is a measure of how isolated from other naturally-occurring wetlands or riparian habitat the AA has become as the result of habitat destruction. To score this sub-variable,estimate the percent of naturally-occurring wetland/riparian habitat that has been lost(by filling,draining,development,or whatever means)within the 500-meter-wide belt surrounding the AA. This zone is called the Habitat Connectivity Envelope(HCE). In most cases the evaluator must use best professional judgment to estimate the amount of natural wetland loss. Historical photographs,National Wetland Inventory(NWI)maps,hydric soil maps can be helpful in making these determinations. Floodplain maps are especially valuable in river-dominated regions,such as the Front Range urban corridor. Evaluation of landforms and habitat patterns in the context of perceivable land use change is used to steer estimates of the amount of wetland loss within the HCE. Rules for Scoring: 1. On the aerial photo, create a 500 m perimeter around the AA. 2.The area within this perimeter is the Habitat Connectivity Envelope(HCE). 3.Within the HCE, outline the current extent of naturally occurring wetland and riparian habitat. Do not include habitats such as excavated ponds or reservoir induced fringe wetlands. 4. Outline the historical extent of wetland and riparian habitats (i.e., existing natural wetlands plus those that have been destroyed). -Use your knowledge of the history of the area and evident land use change to identify where habitat losses have occurred. Additional research can be utilized to increase the accuracy of this estimate including consideration of floodplain maps, historical aerial photographs, soil maps, etc. 5. Calculate the area of existing and historical wetlands. Divide the area of existing wetland by the total amount of existing and historical wetland and riparian habitat,and determine the variable score using the guidelines below. Enter sub-variable score at the bottom of p.2 of the Habitat Connectivity data form. Variable Condition Score Grade Scoring Guidelines A Very little or no loss of wetlands in the HCEor negligible. 1.0-0.9 Reference Standard B More than 80%of historical wetland habitat area within the HCE is still present <0.9-0.8 Highly (less than 20%of habitat area lost). Functioning 80 to 60%of historical wetland habitat area within the HCE is still present <0.8-0.7 Functioning (20%to 40%of habitat area lost). D Less than 60 to 25%of historical wetland habitat area within the HCE is still present <0.7-0.6 Functioning (more than 40 to 75%of habitat area lost). Impaired F Less than 25%of the historical wetland habitat area within the HCE still in existence(more than <0.6 Non- 70%of habitat lost). functioning Notes: Variable 1: Habitat Connectivity p. 2 SV 1.2: Migration/Dispersal Barriers This sub-variable is intended to rate the degree to which the AA has become isolated from existing neighboring wetland and riparian habitat by artificial barriers that inhibit migration or dispersal of organisms. On the aerial photograph,identify the man- made barriers within the HCE that intercede between the AA and surrounding wetlands and riparian areas,and identify them by type on the stressor list. Score this variable based on the barriers'impermeability to migration and dispersal and the amount of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat they affect. Rules for Scoring: 1.On the aerial photo,outline all existing wetland and riparian habitat areas within the HCE. This includes naturally occurring habitats,as well as those purposefully created or induced by land use change. 2. Identify artificial barriers to dispersal and migration of organisms within the HCE that intercede between the AA and surrounding habitats. Mark the stressors present with a check in the first column and describe the general nature, severity and extent of each. List additional stressors in empty rows at the bottom of the table and explain. 3.Considering the composite effect of all of identified barriers to migration and dispersal(i.e.,stressors),assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. ✓ Stressors Comments/description U) Major Highway a) Secondary Highway Tertiary Roadway Railroad ca Bike Path U Urban Development Agricultural Development Artificial Water Body o Fence Ditch or Aqueduct Aquatic Organism Barriers Variable Score Condition Grade Scoring Guidelines 1.0-0.9 A No appreciable barriers exist between the AA and other wetland and riparian habitats in Reference Standard the HCE;or there are no other wetland and riparian areas in the HCE. Barriers impeding migration/dispersal between the AA and up to 33%of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat highly permeable and easily passed by most organisms. <0.9-0.8 B Examples could include gravel roads,minor levees,ditches or barbed-wire fences. More Highly Functioning significant barriers(see"functioning category below)could affect migration to up to 10% of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat. Barriers to migration and dispersal retard the ability of many organisms/propagules to pass between the AA and up to 66%of wetland/riparian habitat. Passage of organisms and propagules through such barriers is still possible,but it may be constrained to certain <0.8-0.7 C times of day,be slow,dangerous or require additional travel. Busy two-lane roads, Functioning culverted areas,small to medium artificial water bodies or small earthen dams would commonly rate a score in this range. More significant barriers(see"functioning impaired" category below)could affect migration to up to 10%of surrounding wetland/riparian Barriers to migration and dispersal preclude the passage of some types of organisms/propagules between the AA and up to 66%of surrounding wetland/riparian <0.7-0.6 habitat. Travel of those animals which can potential negotiate the barrier are strongly Functioning Impaired restricted and may include a high chance of mortality. Up to 33%of surrounding wetland/riparian habitat could be functionally isolated from the AA. AA is essentially isolated from surrounding wetland/riparian habitat by impermeable <0.6 F migration and dispersal barriers. An interstate highway or concrete-lined water Non-functioning conveyance canal are examples of barriers which would generally create functional isolation between the AA and wetland/riparian habitat in the HCE. Add SV 1.1 and 1.2 SV 1.1 Score HD. � scores and divide by two to calculate SV 1.2 Score variable score Variable 1 Score D Variable 2: Contributing Area The AA's Contributing Area is defined as the 250-meter-wide zone surrounding the perimeter of the AA. This variable is a measure of the capacity of that area to support characteristic functions of high quality wetland habitat. Depending on its condition,the contributing area can help maintain wetland condition or it can degrade it. Contributing Area condition is evaluated by considering the AA's Buffer and its Surrounding Land Use. Buffers are strips or patches of more-or-less natural upland and/or wetland habitat more than 5m wide. Buffers are contiguous with the AA boundary and they intercede between it and more intensively used lands. The AA Buffer is characterized with three sub-variables:Buffer Condition, Buffer Extent,and Average Buffer Width. The Surrounding Land Use Sub-variable considers changes within the Contributing Area that limit its capacity to support characteristic wetland functions. Many of the acute,on-site effects of land use change in the Contributing Area are specifically captured by Variables 3-8. Rules for Scoring: 1.Delimit the Contributing Area on an aerial photograph as the zone within 250 meters of the outer boundary of the AA. 2.Evaluate and then rate the Buffer Condition sub-variable using the scoring guidelines. Record the score in the cell provided on the datasheet. 3.Indicate on the aerial photograph zones surrounding the AA which have>_5m of buffer vegetation and those which do not. 4.Calculate the percentage of the AA which has a Buffer and record the value where indicated on the data sheet. 5.Rate the Buffer Extent Sub-variable using the scoring guidelines. 6.Determine the average Buffer width by drawing a line perpendicularly from the AA boundary to the outer extent of the buffer habitat. Measure line length and record its value on the data sheet. Repeat this process until a total of 8 lines have been sampled. 7.Calculate the average buffer width and record value on the data form. Then determine the sub-variable score using the scoring guidelines. 8.Score the Surrounding Land Use sub-variable by recording land use changes on the stressor list that affect the capacity of the landscape to support characteristic wetland functioning. 9. Enter the lowest of the three Buffer sub-variable scores along with the Surrounding Land Use Sub-variable score in the Contributing Area Variable scoring formula at the bottom of p.2 of the data form. The Contributing Area Variable is the SV 2.1 -Buffer Condition FD_,� SV 2.1 - Buffer Condition Score Subvariable Score Condition Grade Buffer Condition Scoring Guidelines Reference Buffer vegetation is predominately native vegetation,human-caused disturbance of the 1.0-0.9 Standard substrate is not evident,and human visitation is minimal. Common examples: Wilderness areas undeveloped forest and range lands. Buffer vegetation may have a mixed native-nonnative composition,but characteristic structure and complexity remain. Soils are mostly undisturbed or have recovered from past human <0.9-0.8 Highly disturbance. Little or only low-impact human visitation. Buffers with higher levels of substrate Functioning disturbance may be included here if the buffer is still able to maintain predominately native vegetation. Common examples:Dispursed camping areas in national forests,common in wildland parks(e.g.State Parks and open s aces. Buffer vegetation is substantially composed of non-native species. Vegetation structure may be <0.8-0.7 Functioning somewhat altered,such as by brush clearing. Moderate substrate distrbance and compaction occurs,and small pockets of greater disturbance may exist. Common examples:City natural areas,mountain hay meadows- Buffer vegetation is substantially composed of non-native species and vegetation structure has <0.7-0.6 Functioning been strongly altered by the complete removal of one or more strata. Soil disturbance and the Impaired intensity of human visitation are generally high. Common examples:Open lands around resource extraction sites e.g., ravel mines clear cut logging areas ski slopes. <0.6 Non-functioningu er is nearly ore t re y absent. SV 2.2-Buffer Extent Subvariable Condition Class %Buffer Scoring Guidelines F-1 Percent of AA with Buffer Score 1.0-0.9 Reference Standard 90-100%of AA with Buffer <0.9-0.8 Highly Functioning 70-90%of AA with Buffer <0.8-0.7 Functioning 51-69%of AA with Buffer D(� SV 2.2- Buffer Extent <0.7-0.6 Functioning Impaired 26-50%of AA with Buffer <0.6 Non-functioning 0-25%of AA with Buffer Variable 2: Contributing Area (p. 2) SV 2.3 - Average Buffer WidthJ' �` R�jecord measured buffer widths in the spaces below and average. Buffer , V V !�D J � 7�M Width(m) 5� 5� �CJ� Line# 3 4 b 6 1 b Avg.Buffer Width(m) Subvariable Score Condition Grade Buffer Width Scoring Guidelines SV 2.3 -Average Buffer 1.0-0.9 Reference Standard Average Buffer width is 190-250m FD�7 Width Score <0.9-0.8 Highly Functioning Average Buffer width is 101-189m <0.8-0.7 Functioning Average Buffer width is 31-100m <0.7-0.6 1 Functioning Impaired Average Buffer width is 6-30m <0.6 1 Non-functioning Average Buffer width is 0-5m SV 2.4- Surrounding Land Use SV 2.4 - Surrounding Catalog and characterize land use changes in the surrounding o7lLand Use Score landscape and score. Stressors Comments/description Industrial/commercial a Urban C: Residential c� v Rural m Dryland Farming Z) Intensive Agriculture -o Orchards or Nurseries JLivestock Grazing ii Transportation Corridor Urban Parklands inDams/impoundments Artificial Water body Physical Resource Extraction Biological Resource Extraction Variable Score Condition Grade Scoring Guidelines 1.0-0.9 Reference No appreciable land use change has been imposed Surrounding Landscape. Standard Some land use change has occurred in the Surrounding Landscape,but changes have <0.9-0.8 B minimal effect on the the landscape's capacity to support characteristic aquatic functioning, Highly Functioning either because land use is not intensive,for example haying,light grazing,or low intensity silviculture,or more substantial changes occur in approximately less than 10%of the area. Surrounding Landscape has been subjected to a marked shift in land use,however,the land <0.8-0.7 C retains much of its capacity to support natural wetland function and it is not an overt source of Functioning pollutants or sediment. Moderate-intensity land uses such as dry-land farming,urban"green" corridors or moderate cattle grazing would commonly be placed within this scoring range. Land use changes within the Surrounding Landscape has been substantial including the a p moderate to high coverage(up to 50%)of impermeable surfaces,bare soil,or other artificial <0.7-0.6 Functioning surfaces;considerable in-flow urban runoff or fertilizer-rich waters common. Supportive Impaired capacity of the land has been greatly diminished but not totally extinguished. Intensively logged areas,low-density urban developments,some urban parklands and many cropping The Surrounding Landscape is essentially comletely developed or is otherwise a cause of <0.6 F Non-functioning severe ecological stress on wetland habitats. Commercial developments or highly urban ilandscapes generally rate a score of less than 0.6. Buffer Score Surrounding (Lowest score) Land Use O? ( + b 5— ) _ 2 = Variable 2 Score U. Variable 3: Water Source This variable is concerned with up-gradient hydrologic connectivity. It is a measure of impacts to the AA's water source,including the quantity and timing of water delivery,and the ability of source water to perform work such as sediment transport,erosion,soil pore flushing,etc. To score this variable,identify stressors that alter the source of water to the AA,and record their presence on the stressor list. Stressors can impact water source by depletion,augmentation,or alteration of inflow timing or hydrodynamics. This variable is designed to assess water quantity,power and timing,not water quality. Water quality will be evaluated in Variable 7. Scoring rules: 1. Use the stressor list and knowledge of the watershed to catalog type-specific impairments of the AA's water source. Mark the stressors present with a check in the first column and describe the general nature,severity and extent of each. List additional stressors in empty rows at the bottom of the table and explain. 2.Considering the composite effect of stressors on the water source, rate the condition of this variable with the aid of the scoring guidelines. ✓ Stressors Comments/description Ditches or Drains(tile,etc.) Dams Diversions Groundwater pumping Draw-downs Culverts or Constrictions Point Source(urban,ind.,ag.) Non-point Source Increased Drainage Area 4 Storm Drain/Urban Runoff Impermeable Surface Runoff Irrigation Return Flows Mining/Natural Gas Extraction Trans basin Diversion Actively Managed Hydrology Variable Condition Score Grade Depletion Augmentation A Unnatural drawdown events minor,rare or non- Unnatural high-water events minor,rare or non- 1.0-0.9 Reference existent,very slight uniform depletion,or trivial existent,slight uniform increase in amount of Standard alteration of hydrodynamics. inflow,or trivial alteration of hydrodynamics. Unnatural drawdown events occasional,short Occasional unnatural high-water events,short in B duration and/or mild;or uniform depletion up to 20%; duration and/or mild in intensity;or uniform <0.9-0.8 Highly or mild to moderate reduction of peak flows or augmentation up to 20%;or mild to moderate Functioning capacity of water to perform work. increase of peak flows or capacity of water to perform work. Unnatural drawdown events common and of mild to Common occurrence of unnatural high-water moderate intensity and/or duration;or uniform events,of a mild to moderate intensity and/or <0.8-0.7 C depletion up to 50%;or moderate to substantial duration;or uniform augmentation up to 50%;or Functioning reduction of peak flows or capacity of water to moderate to substantial increase of peak flows or perform work. capacity of water to perform work. Unnatural drawdown events occur frequently with a Common occurrence of unnatural high-water moderate to high intensity and/or duration;or uniform events,some of which may be severe in nature or D depletion up to 75%;or substantial reduction of peak exist for a substantial portion of the growing <0.7-0.6 Functioning flows or capacity of water to perform work. Wetlands season;or uniform augmentation more than 50% Impaired with actively managed or wholly artificial or capacity of water to perform work.Wetlands hydrology will usually score in this range or with actively managed or wholly artificial lower. hydrology will usually score in this range or F Water source diminished enough to threaten or Frequency,duration or magnitude of unnaturally <0.6 Non- extinguish wetland hydrology in the AA. high-water great enough to change the functioning fundamental characteristics of the wetland. Variable 3 Score 0 (� Variable 4: Water Distribution This variable is concerned with hydrologic connectivity within the AA. It is a measure of alteration to the spatial distribution of surface and groundwater within the AA. These alterations are manifested as local changes to the hydrograph and generally result from geomorphic modifications within the AA. To score this variable,identify stressors within the AA that alter flow patterns and impact the hydrograph of the AA,including localized increases or decreases to the depth or duration of the water table or surface water. Because the wetland's ability to distribute water in a characteristic fashion is fundamentally dependent on the condition of its water source, in most cases the Water Source variable score will define the upper limit Water Distribution score. For example,if the Water Source variable is rated at 0.85,the Water Distribution score will usually have the potential to attain a maximum score of 0.85. Additional stressors within or outside the lower end of the AA effecting water distribution(e.g.,ditches and levees)will reduce the score from the maximum value. Scoring rules: 1. Identify impacts to the natural distribution of water throughout the AA and catalog them in the stressor table. 2. Considering all of the stressors identified, assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. In most cases,the Water Source variable score will set the upper limit for the Water Distribution score. stressors Comments/description Alteration of Water Source Ditches Ponding/Impoundment Culverts Road Grades Channel Incision/Entrenchment Hardened/Engineered Channel Enlarged Channel Artificial Banks/Shoreline Weirs Dikes/Levees/Berms Diversions Sediment/Fill Accumulation Variable Condition Grade Non-riverine Riverine Score Little or no alteration has been made to the Natural active floodplain areas flood on a 1.0-0.9 A way in which water is distributed throughout normal recurrence interval. No evidence of Reference Standard the wetland. AA maintains a natural alteration of flooding and subirrigation hydrologic regime. duration and intensity. Less than 10%of the AA is affected by in situ Channel-adjacent areas have occasional hydrologic alteration;or more widespread unnatural periods of drying or flooding;or <0.9-0.8 B impacts result in less than a 2 in.(5 cm) uniform shift in the hydrograph less than Highly Functioning change in mean growing season water table typical root depth. elevation. Between 10 and 33%of the AA is affected by In channel-adjacent area,periods of drying or in situ hydrologic alteration;or more flooding are common;or uniform shift in the <0.8-0.7 C widespread impacts result in a 4 in.(5 cm)or hydrograph near root depth. Functioning less change in mean growing season water table elevation. 33 to 66%of the AA is affected by in situ Adjacent to the channel,unnatural periods of hydrologic alteration;or more widespread drying or flooding are the norm;or uniform impacts result in a 6 in.(15 cm)or less shift in the hydrograph greater than root <0.7-0.6 D Functioning Impaired change in mean growing season water table depth. elevation. Water table behavior must still meet jurisdictional criteria to merit this rating. More than 66%of the AA is affected by Historical active floodplain areas are almost hydrologic alteration which changes the never wetted from overbank flooding,and/or <0.6 F fundamental functioning of the wetland groundwater infiltration is effectively cut off. Non-functioning system,generally exhibited as a conversion to upland or deep water habitat. Variable 4 Score �� Variable 5: Water Outflow This variable is concerned with down-gradient hydrologic connectivity and the flow of water and water-borne materials and energy out of the AA. In particular it illustrates the degree to which the AA can support the functioning of down-gradient habitats. It is a measure of impacts that affect the hydrologic outflow of water including the passage of water through its normal low-and high-flow surface outlets,infiltration/groundwater recharge,and the energetic characteristics of water delivered to dependent habitats. In some cases,alteration of evapotranspiration rates may be significant enough of a factor to consider in scoring. Score this variable by identifying stressors that impact the means by which water is exported from the AA. To evaluate this variable focus on how water,energy and associated materials are exported out of the AA and their ability it support down-gradient habitats in a manner consistent with their HGM(regional)subclass. Because the wetland's ability to export water and materials in a characteristic fashion is to a very large degree dependent the condition of its water source,as with the Water Distribution variable, in most cases the Water Source variable score will define the upper limit Water Outflow score. Scoring rules: 1. Identify impacts to the natural outflow of water from the AA and catalog them in the stressor table. 2.Considering all of the stressors identified,assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. Take in to account the cumulative effect of stressors on the wetland's ability to export water and water-borne materials. In most cases the Water Source variable will set the upper limit for the Water Outflow score. Stressors Comments/description Alteration of Water Source Ditches Dikes/Levees Road Grades Culverts Diversions Constrictions Channel Incision/Entrenchment Hardened/Engineered Channel Artificial Stream Banks Weirs Confined Bridge Openings Variable Score Condition Grade Scoring Guidelines Stressors have little to no effect on the magnitude,timing or hydrodynamics of the AA water 1.0-0.9 Reference Standard outflow regime. g High-or low-water outflows are mildly to moderately affected,but at intermediate("normal") <0.9-0.8 Highly Functioning levels flow continues essentially unaltered in quantity or character. <0.8-0.7 C High-or low-water outflows are moderately affected,mild alteration of intermediate level Functioning outflow occurs;or hydrodynamics moderately affected. D Outflow at all stages is moderately to highly impaired resulting in persistent flooding of <0.7-0.6 Functioning Impaired portions of the AA or unnatural drainage;or outflow hydrodynamics severely disrupted. The natural outflow regime is profoundly impaired. Down-gradient hydrologic connection <0.6 F severed or nearly so. Alterations may cause widespread unnatural persistent flooding or Non-functioning dewatering of the wetland system. Variable 5 Score Q.— Variable 6: Geomorphology This variable is a measure of the degree to which the geomorphic setting has been altered within the AA. Changes to the surface configuration and natural topography constitute stressors. Such stressors may be observed in the form of fill,excavation,dikes, sedimentation due to absence of flushing floods,etc. In riverine systems,geomorphic changes to the stream channel should be considered if the channel is within the AA(i.e,small is size). Alterations may involve the bed and bank(substrate embeddedness or morphological changes),stream instability,and stream channel reconfiguration. Geomorphic changes are usually ultimately manifested as changes to wetland surface hydrology and water relations with vegetation. Geomorphic alterations can also directly affect soil properties,such as near-surface texture,and the wetland chemical environment such as the redox state or nutrient composition in the rooting zone. In rating this variable, do not include these resultant effects of geomorphic change;rather focus on the physical impacts within the footprint of the alteration within the AA —For example,the width and depth of a ditch or the size of a levee within the AA would describe the extent of the stressors. The secondary effects of geomorphic change are addressed by other variables. All alterations to geomorphology should be evaluated including small-scale impacts such as pugging,hoof sheer,and sedimentation which Scoring Rules: 1.Identify impacts to geomorphological setting and topography within the AA and record them on the stressor checklist. 2.Considering all of the stressors identified,assign an overall variable score using the scoring guidelines. Stressors Comments Dredging/Excavation/Mining Fill,including dikes,road grades,et Grading Compaction `y Plowing/Disking y Excessive Sedimentation Dumping Hoof Shear/Pugging Aggregate or Mineral Mining Sand Accumulation Channel Instability/Over Widening Excessive Bank Erosion Q Channelization y Reconfigured Stream Channels C Artificial Banks/Shoreline c�a Beaver Dam Removal s () Substrate Embeddedness Lack or Excess of Woody Debris Condition Variable Score Grade Scoring Guidelines A Topography essentially unaltered from the natural state,or alterations appear to have a minimal effect on 1.0-0.9 Reference wetland functioning and condition.Patch or microtopographic complexity may be slightly altered,but Standard native plant communities are still supported. 8 Alterations to topography result in small but detectable changes to habitat conditions in some or all of the <0.9-0.8 Highly AA;or more severe impacts exist but affect less than 10%of the AA. Functioning <0.8-0.7 C Changes to AA topography may be pervasive but generally mild to moderate in severity. May include Functioning patches of more significant habitat alteration;or more severe alterations affect up to 20%of the AA. At least one important surface type or landform has been eliminated or created;microtopography has D been strongly impacted throughout most or all of the AA;or more severe alterations affect up to 50% of <0.7-0.6 Functioning the AA. Evidence that widespread diminishment or alteration of native plant community exist due to Impaired physical habitat alterations. Most incidentally created wetland habitat such as that created by roadside ditches and the like would score in this range or lower. F Pervasive geomorphic alterations have caused a fundamental change in site character and functioning, <0.6 Non- functioning commonly resulting in a conversion to upland or deepwater habitat. Variable 6 Score U Variable 7: Water and Soil Chemical Environment This variable concerns the chemical environment of the soil and water media within the AA,including pollutants, water and soil characteristics. The origin of pollutants may be within or outside the AA. Score this variable by listing indicators of chemical stress in the AA. Consider point source and non-point sources of pollution,as well as mechanical or hydrologic changes that alter the chemical environment. Because water quality frequently cannot be inferred directly,the presence of stressors is often identified by the presence of indirect indicators. Five sub-variables are used to describe the Water and Soil Chemical Environment:Nutrient Enrichment/Eutrophication/Oxygen;Sedimentation/Turbidity;Toxic Contamination/pH;Temperature;and Soil Chemistry and Redox Potential. Utilization of web-based data mining tools is highly recommended to help inform and support variable scores. Scoring rules: 1. Stressors are grouped into sub-variables which have a similar signature or set of causes. 2. Use the indicator list to identify each stressor impacting the chemical environment of the AA. 3. For each sub-variable,determine its score using the scoring guideline table provided on the second page of the scoring sheet. Scoring sub-variables is carried out in exactly the same way as normal variable scoring. -If the AA is part of a water body that is recognized as impaired or recommended for TMDL development for one of the factors,then score that sub-variable 0.65 or lower. 4.Transcribe sub-variable scores to the following variable scoring page and compute the sum. 5.The lowest sub-variable score sets the letter grade range. The composite of sub-variables influences the score within that range. Sub-variable Stressor Indicator �/ Comments Sub- Livestock variable SV 7.1 Agricultural Runoff Score Nutrient Enrichment/ Septic/Sewage Eutrophication/ Excessive Algae or Aquatic Veg. (�•7 Cumulative Watershed NPS Oxygen (D.O.) CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List Excessive Erosion Excessive Deposition Fine Sediment Plumes SV 7.2 Agricultural Runoff ��ll Sedimentation/ Excessive Turbidity V (Q Turbidity Nearby Construction Site Cumulative Watershed NPS CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List Recent Chemical Spills Nearby Industrial Sites Road Drainage/Runoff Livestock Agricultural Runoff SV 7.3 Storm Water Runoff Toxic contamination/ Fish/Wildlife Impacts o pH Vegetation Impacts Cumulative Watershed NPS Acid Mine Drainage Point Source Discharge CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List Metal staining on rocks and veg. Excessive Temperature Regime Lack of Shading SV 7.4 Reservoir/Power Plant Discharge Temperature Industrial Discharge Cumulative Watershed NPS CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List Unnatural Saturation/Desaturation SV 7.5 Mechanical Soil Disturbance rrll � Soil chemistry/ Dumping/introduced Soil Redox potential CDPHE Impairment/TMDL List Variable 7: Water and Soil Chemical Environment p.2 Sub-variable Scoring Guidelines Variable Score Condition Class Scoring Guidelines 1.0-0.9 Reference Standard Stress indicators not present or trivial. <0.9-0.8 B Stress indicators scarcely present and mild,or otherwise not occurring in more than Highly Functioning 10%of the AA. <0.8-0.7 C Stress indicators present at mild to moderate levels,or otherwise not occurring in Functioning more than 33%of the AA. <0.7-0.6 D Stress indicators present at moderate to high levels,or otherwise not occurring in Functioning Impaired more than 66%of the AA <0.6 F Stress indicators strongly evident throughout the AA at levels which apparently alter Non-functioning the fundamental chemical environment of,the wetland system Input each sub-variable score from p. 1 of the V7 data form and calculate the sum. c a> c o � m - m c c o O O O E m 'c > C: M COco ) a (D c� o c = aci ° o a (D n a) o � x o �' O O) U O- U O (Dy L 7 7 X a 3 0 2 a) O N = 0 ZwO cnI- F-- n F-- U) 0Y cnc no EE] + + + + Use the table to score the Chemical Environment Variable circling the applicable scoring rules. Variable Condition Scoring Rules Score Grade Single Factor Composite Score A 1.0-0.9 Reference No single factor scores<0.9 The factor scores sum>4.5 Standard B <0.9-0.8 Highly Any single factor scores Z 0.8 but<0.9 The factor scores sum>4.0 but<_4.5 Functioning <0.8-0.7 C Any single factor scores>_7.0 but<0.8 The factor scores sum>3.5 but_<4.0 Functioning D <0.7-0.6 Functioning Any single factor scores z 0.6 but<0.7 The factor scores sum>3.0 but<_3.5 Impaired F <0.6 Non- Any single factor scores<0.6 The factor scores sum<3.0 functioning Variable 7 Score 11 Variable 8: Vegetation Structure and Complexity This variable is a measure of the condition of the wetland's vegetation relative to its native state. It particularly focuses on the wetland's ability to perform higher-order functions such as support of wildlife populations,and influence primary functions such as flood-flow attenuation,channel stabilization and sediment retention. Score this variable by listing stressors that have affected the structure, diversity,composition and cover of each vegetation stratum that would normally be present in the HGM(regional)subclass being assessed.For this variable,stressor severity is a measure of how much each vegetation stratum differs functionally from its natural condition or from the natural range of variability exhibited the HGM subclass or regional subclass. This variable has four sub-variables, each corresponding to a stratum of vegetation: Tree Canopy;Shrub Layer;Herbaceous Layer;and Aquatics. Rules for Scoring: 1.Determine the number and types of vegetation layers present within the AA. Make a judgment as to whether additional layers were historically present using direct evidence such as stumps, root wads or historical photographs. Indirect evidence such as local knowledge and expert opinion can also be used in this determination. 2. Do not score vegetation layers that would not normally be present in the wetland type being assessed. 3. Estimate and record the current coverage of each vegetation layer at the top of the table. 4. Record the Reference Standard or expected percent coverage of each vegetation layer to create the sub-variable weighting factor. The condition of predominant vegetation layers has a greater influence on the variable score than do minor components. 5.Enter the percent cover values as decimals in the row of the stressor table labeled"Reference/expected Percent Cover of Layer". Note, percentages will often sum to more than 100%(1.0). 6. Determine the severity of stressors acting on each individual canopy layers,indicating their presence with checks in the appropriate boxes of the stressor table. The difference between the expected and observed stratum coverages is one measure of stratum alteration. 7. Determine the sub-variable score for each valid vegetation layer using the scoring guidelines on the second page of the scoring sheet. Enter each sub-variable score in the appropriate cell of the row labeled"Veg.Layer Sub-variable Score".If a stratum has been wholly removed score it as 0.5. 8. Multiply each layer's Reference Percent Cover of Layer score by its Veg.Layer Sub-variable scores and enter the products in the labled cells. These are the weighted sub-variable scores. Individually sum the Reference Percent Cover of Layer and Weighted Sub-variables scores. 9. Divide the sum of"Veg. Layer Sub-variable Scores"by the total coverage of all layers scored. This product is the Variable 8 score. Enter this number in the labeled box at the bottom of this page. Vegetation Layers Current% Coverage of Layer Stressor Tree Shrub Herb Aquatic Comments Noxious Weeds Exotic/Invasive spp. -W Tree Harvest Brush Cutting/Shrub Removal 1,01,1 IM Livestock Grazing Excessive Herbivory Mowing/Haying Herbicide Loss of Zonation/Homogenization Dewatering Over Saturation CURRENT COVERAGE AND /`� i �Ci (tSSUVItii (Q�Q,ifeuLCQ, 15 V"vt REFERENCE/EXPECTED Reference/Expected % +©+ 9-01 Cover of Layer � I x x x x Veg. Layer Sub- JF_0� F(—:) See sub-variable scoring variable Score guidelines on following page u u n u Weighted Sub-variable + + +� Score Variable 8 Score Variable 8: Vegetation Structure and Complexity p. 2 Sub-variable 8 Scoring Guidelines: Based on the list of stressors identified above,rate the severity of their cumulative effect on vegetation structure and complexity for each vegetation layer. Variable Score Condition Scoring Guidelines Grade A Stressors not present or with an intensity low enough as to not detectably affect the structure, 1.0-0.9 Reference diversity or composition of the vegetation layer. Standard Stressors present at intensity levels sufficient to cause detectable,but minor,changes in layer B composition. Stress related change should generally be less than 10%for any given attribute(e.g., <0.9-0.8 Highly 10%cover of invasive,10%reduction in richness or cover)if the stressor is evenly distributed Functioning throughout the wetland. Stress related change could be as high as 33%for a given attribute if stressors are confined to patches comprising less than 10%of the wetland. Stressors present with enough intensity to cause significant changes in the character of vegetation, including alteration of layer coverage,structural complexity and species composition. The vegetation layer retains its essential character though. Aft with a high proportion of non-native grasses will <0.8-0.7 C commonly fall in this class. Stress related change should generally be less than 33%for any given Functioning attribute(e.g.,33%cover of invasive,33%reduction in richness or cover)if the stressor is evenly distributed throughout the wetland. Stress related change could be as much as 66%for a given attribute if stressors are confined to patches comprising less than 25%of the wetland. Stressor intensity severe enough to cause profound changes to the fundamental character of the D vegetation layer. Stress-related change should generally be less than 66%for any given attribute <0.7-0.6 Functioning (e.g.,66%cover of invasive,66%reduction in richness or cover)if the stressor is evenly distributed Impaired throughout the wetland. Stress related change could be as much as 80%of a given attribute if stressors are confined to patches comprising less than 50%of the wetland. F Vegetation layer has been completely removed or altered to the extent that is no longer comparable <0.6 Non- functioning to the natural structure,diversity and composition. FACWet Score Card Scorinq Procedure: 1. Transcribe variable scores from each variable data sheet to the corresponding cell in the variable score table. 2. In each Functional Capacity Index(FCI)equation,enter the corresponding variable scores in the equation cells. Do not enter values in the crossed cells lacking labels. 3. Add the variable scores to calculate the total functional points achieved for each function. 4. Divide the total functional points achieved by the functional points possible. The typical number of total points possible is provided, however,if a variable is added or subtracted to FCI equation the total possible points must be adjusted 5. Calculate the Composite FCI, by adding the FCI scores and dividing by the total number of functions scored(usually 7). 6. If scoring is done directly in the Excel spreadsheet,all values will be transferred and calculated automatically. VARIABLE SCORE TABLE Variable 1: Habitat Connectivity(Connect) U M m Variable 2: Contributing Area(CA) D Variable 3: Water Source(Source) 0.0 rn o Variable 4: Water Distribution(Dist) 5 x Variable 5: Water Outflow(Outflow) S o Variable 6: Geomorphology(Geom) fl 0 @ CU M Variable 7: Chemical Environment(Chem) S U = Q Variable 8: Vegetation Structure and Complexity(Veg) �. Functional Capacity Indices Total Function 1 --Support of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Functional FCI Vlconnect + V2cA + (2 x V8 eg) Points =+=+ b•Z +=+=+�= l `� - 4 Function 2--Support of Characteristic Fish/aquatic Habitat (3 x V3source)+ (2 x V4dist) +(2 x V%utflcw)+ V6geom + V7chem Function 3--Flood Attenuation V2cA +(2 x V3source)+ (2 x V4dist) + (2 x V50utflow) + V69eom + V8Veg Function 4--Short-and Long-term Water Storage V3source + (2 x V4dist) +(2 x V50utflow) V6geom Function 5--Nutrient/Toxicant Removal (2 x V2cA) + (2 x V46s0 + V6geom V7chem 0+0+=+ 0,5 +=+�_ �,3 6 Function 6--Sediment Retention/Shoreline Stabilization V2cA + (2 x V6geom) + (2 x V8Veg) Function 7--Production Export/Food Chain Support V1 connect +(2 x V50utflow)+ V6geom + V7chem + (2 x V8,e9) �+0+=+ D,S + p. Z +==== 7 =� Sum of Individual FCI Scores 3 2� Divide by the Number of Functions Scored — 7 Composite FCI Score 0,�(