The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReports - Ecological - 05/26/2025 Ecological Characterization Study Polestar Village (JR Engineering, LLC) City of Fort Collins Larimer County, CO Prepared For: Ken Merritt JR Engineering, LLC. 2900 S. College Avenue, Suite 3D Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Prepared By: Sarah J. Smith & John Giordanengo AloTerra Restoration Services 320 E. Vine Drive, Suite 213 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Report Submitted by: _____________________ ______________ John H. Giordanengo Date Principal Restoration Ecologist AloTerra Restoration Services 970-420-7346 john@aloterraservices.com 05/26/2023 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3 PROPERTY LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................ 3 STUDY METHODS .............................................................................................................................................. 4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Site Description ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Site Conditions and Status ................................................................................................................................ 7 Existing Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Topography ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Natural Habitats and Features with Significant Ecological Value ...................................................................... 7 Natural Habitats and Plant Communities.......................................................................................................... 8 Proximity to Designated Natural Areas ........................................................................................................... 10 WILDLIFE ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ............................................................................ 11 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM) ................................................................................................... 11 Rare Plants ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Other Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................. 12 NATURAL HABITAT BUFFER ZONE (NHBZ) DESIGN AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 13 Forestry Mitigation ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Noxious Weeds ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Enhancement ................................................................................................ 13 Development Activities ................................................................................................................................... 14 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 LITERATURE CITATED ...................................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX A: WETLAND DELINEATION FIELD FORMS APPENDIX B: WETLAND DELINEATION PHOTOS APPENDIX C: WILDLIFE REVIEW APPENDIX D: 95% Design APPENDIX E: Approved JD Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 3 Introduction This report constitutes the Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) required for the proposed development of the Polestar Village, within the General Commercial (CG) zone district and the TOD overlay district. This ECS report is provided in association with a draft 60% design (Appendix D) for the 50’ Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) required for this development, wetland mitigation, and riparian forest mitigation. This ECS was completed by AloTerra Restoration Services to address requirements set forth in Article 3, section 3.4.1 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. Project Description The Polestar Village project (the Project) includes the development of mixed-use residential properties that ranges from single family homes to studio apartments and live/work units (see JR Engineering Plan Set). This site is what was previously Happy Heart Farms and associated undeveloped areas. Due to the proximity of Saddle Ridge Natural Area and Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, the City of Fort Collins Environmental Planning Department is requiring a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone to mitigate impacts to wildlife habitat. Currently, there is one wetland area on site, totaling 0.06 acres of wetland habitat, which will require a 50’ buffer, as well as riparian forest habitat which will require a 50’ buffer from the dripline (Figure 2). A majority of this wetland occurs within the NHBZ area. NHBZ designs, including wetland and riparian area enhancement, are included in the attached design plan. Several species of mature trees exist on site, including both native and introduced species, that provide corridor habitat for a variety of wildlife, which will also need to be included in mitigation efforts. Property Location The approximate 21.5-acre property is located within the City of Fort Collins, on what was previously Happy Heart Farms. The northern edge of the property is bordered by the Locust Grove subdivision, and the easter edge is bordered by the Mountaire subdivision. The southern edge is bordered by private landowners, and the southwest border is shared with Scenic Views PUD. Saddle Ridge Natural Area lies to the west (Figure 1). The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal also borders the west and southern boundaries of the property (Figure 1). The center of the property lies approximately at 40°34’37.20” N and 105°07’46.35” W. Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 4 Figure 1. Project location. Study Methods In fulfillment of the ECS requirements set forth in Article 3, section 3.4.1 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, AloTerra staff acquired desktop data and conducted field surveys to characterize existing ecological and wildlife conditions, as well as other natural features occurring on the site. Ecological Field Assessments: September 24, 2021, November 1, 2021, October 21, 2022 Wildlife Field Review: November 1, 2021 Desktop analysis included reviews and interpretations of aerial imagery, assessment of regional drainage patterns, IPAC database review (USFWS), groundwater conditions, and location of nearby natural areas. Field assessments included qualitative rapid assessments of native plant communities, weed populations, wetland and riparian areas, wildlife habitat conditions, and indicators of current wildlife occupation. In addition, a formal wetland delineation was performed (Appendices A and B). The rapid assessment of vegetation was performed to compile a list of dominant and co-dominant species, and species present in each community at a lower cover. For the purposes of this study, a plant was considered dominant or co-dominant if its relative cover is greater than 20%. There may be several species present on site that, due to their phenological stage, were not readily observable at the time of this survey. However, based on general disturbed site conditions, and the presence of above ground features of dominant species that are present, we are confident that this survey captured species that together represent at least 90% of the above ground biomass of the site. Results The results of the field and desktop assessments are described below, with the associated natural features represented in Figure 2. Approximately 99% of the project site is characterized as historic agricultural and pasture fields. Less than Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 5 1% of the site is comprised of wetland and riparian communities, which are in a degraded state or dominated by understories of exotic plants. Figure 2. Mapped natural features within Project boundary. Site Description From a historical perspective, prior to modern development, we believe the project site to have been dominated by short-grass prairie within the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion (level III ecoregion). Given the proximity of the property to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, a manmade water diversion, it is likely that the existing wetland and cottonwood trees are not historic. However, both of these habitats are important to wildlife habitat directly, and as part of larger corridors. Historic aerial imagery dating back to 1956 shows that this area has been in agriculture for a minimum of 65 years. Currently, the upland areas are dominated by crops, non-native weeds, and soils that have been continually disturbed due to cultivation activities. The wetland and associated riparian areas are of low native species diversity, low community complexity, and low structural diversity. Several mature cottonwood trees exist on site, along with Russian olive and various conifer species that were planted as a windrow or grew in association with high moisture conditions along the canal. Soils are generally loam, clay loam, and clay (Table 1). The greatest habitat features include the wetland community and native cottonwoods that exist on site. Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 6 Figure 3. Existing soil types within the Project boundary. Table 1. Soil type descriptions (data from USGS Web Soil Survey). Soil Type/Composition Map Symbol Slope Profile Altvan-Satanta loam 55% Altvan, 35% Satanta, 10% minor components H1 – 0 to 9”: loam H2 – 9 to 16”: clay loam H3 – 16 to 31”: loam H4 – 31 to 60”: gravelly sand Satanta H1 – 0 to 9”: loam H2 – 9 to 14”: loam alluvium drained 80” 90% heldt, 10% minor components H2 – 4 to 15: clay H3 – 15 to 26”: clay H4 – 26 to 35”: clay alluvium derived from clayey shale drained 80” 90% loveland, 10% H2 – 15 to 32”: loam H3 – 32 to 60”: very drained 80” Soil Type/Composition Map Symbol Slope Profile Satanta loam 90% Satanta, 10% H2 – 9 to 18”: clay loam H3 – 18 to 79”: loam drained 80” Site Conditions and Status The site is currently dominated by former and existing agricultural operations, a small wetland, and riparian vegetation associated with Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. The greatest ecological functions provided by existing site include organic matter production by the non-native vegetation, which supports some wildlife species and also helps to minimize soil erosion. However, the low diversity of native upland vegetation minimizes the related diversity and biomass of native wildlife. The wetland and associated riparian habitat provide some minor wildlife benefits, though those benefits are limited due to its small size and low structural/functional diversity. Existing Infrastructure Existing infrastructure includes a headgate and associated culverts that are connected to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. A small lateral irrigation line also runs from west to east through the property for agricultural purposes. A berm on the east side of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal was likely constructed as an embankment during Canal excavation, with a secondary benefit of controlling flooding on Happy Valley Farms. Existing electrical, fiber, water infrastructure can be found on the JR Engineering PDP. Topography The project site is generally flat (< 5% slope). Natural Habitats and Features with Significant Ecological Value In this section we provide a checklist of required features as outlined in the ECS. No significant native plant communities were documented on the site apart from the emergent vegetation and mature cottonwood trees. Natural Communities or Habitats Aquatic: no; Wetland and wet meadow: yes; Native grassland: no; Riparian forest: yes; Urban plains forest: no; Riparian shrubland: no; Foothills forest: no; Foothills shrubland: no Special Features (enter yes/no, indicate on map, and describe details below): Significant remnants of native plant communities: no. Based on field conditions and analysis of aerial imagery, it is apparent no significant remnant native plant communities exist on site. The existing riparian plant associates are likely a result of human-created topographic (e.g., stormwater drainages), hydrologic, and surface water alterations. Areas of significant geological or paleontological interest: not likely. A cultural and historical resources survey was not conducted as part of this assessment. However, based on the history of the site, it is unlikely the site harbors significant cultural or historical resources. Any prominent views from or across the site? no. No significant views can be seen, as much of the site is surrounded by housing developments. The pattern, species and location of any significant native trees and other native site vegetation. The only significant native vegetation occurring on the Project site includes a small patch of cattail (Typha latifolia) and baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and several mature cottonwood trees. Pattern, species, and location of any significant non-native trees. Russian olive (Eleaganus angustifolia) and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) trees can be found throughout the property. Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 7 Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 8 Special habitat features The special habitat features on the project site include the wetland; however, the quality of this wetland is of moderate to poor condition and function. Natural Habitats and Plant Communities The subsections below outline the conditions of native habitats existing on site: wetlands, agriculture, pasture, and disturbed uplands. Refer to Figure 3 for locations of these features and Figure 4/Table 2 for mitigation. Wetland Communities (non jurisdictional) Description AloTerra performed a formal wetland delineation on site (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region, Version 2.0, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) and a review of other aquatic features such as ponds and streams. Because the vegetation and hydrology of the wetland, we consider it more typical of an herbaceous wetland community. No perennial or ephemeral streams exist within the survey areas, so we did not conduct an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) survey. AloTerra submitted an approved jurisdictional determination to USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) in 2022. On Nov 1, 2022 USACE ruled that the wetland AloTerra identified in the project area is non-jurisdictional. USACE assigned the Corps File number as NWO-2022-01369-DEN (Appendix E). Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Cattail (Typha latifolia), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Russian olive (Eleaganus angustifolia), and fringed willow herb (Epilobium ciliatum) were the dominant species at the time of sampling. Riparian Forest Description AloTerra mapped the dripline of the riparian forest area (Figure 1). Mitigation for the riparian forest will be addressed through the tree mitigation plan, in coordination with the City of Fort Collins Forestry Dept. Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Crack willow (Salix x fragilis), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Agricultural Communities Description The project site is highly disturbed and predominately vegetated with non-native grasses. Due to the high cover of bare ground, high cover of non-native vegetation, and low diversity of structure, the wildlife value of this field is low. Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Hairy evening primrose (Oenothera villosa), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), kochia (Bassia scoparia), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae), and three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus) were the dominant and subdominant species in this community, with about 30% bare ground present at time of sampling. Pasture Communities Description The project site is highly disturbed and predominately vegetated with non-native grasses. Due to the high cover of bare ground, high cover of non-native vegetation, and low diversity of structure, the wildlife value of this field is low. Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) were the dominant species in this community present at time of sampling. Page 9 Disturbed Upland Plant Communities Description Upland areas are highly disturbed and predominately vegetated by non-native flora. Due to the high cover non- native vegetation and low diversity or structure, the wildlife value of these areas is very low. Dominant & Co-Dominant Species Smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and bindweed (Convovulus arvensis) were dominant across this community at time of sampling. Figure 4. Mitigation areas for wetland. Mitigation Requirements Table 2 provides a breakdown of mitigation requirements for wetland impacts. Mitigation requirements are based on Land Use Code from City of Fort Collins. The 0.32 acres of wetland mitigation requirements was verified in a meeting with Kirk Longstein, Env. Planner with City of Fort Collins, on March 23, 2023. Riparian Forest mitigation is being met through the tree planting plan developed by the City of Fort Collin’s Forestry Dept and JR Engineering. Table 2. Mitigation Requirements for wetland impacts. Mitigation Type Acreage Wetland Area Impacted by Development Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village 0.05 Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 10 Total 1:1 Mitigation Required: 0.32 acres Proximity to Designated Natural Areas The Project property is directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of Saddle Ridge Natural Area (Figure 1), which is managed by the Saddle Ridge Commons Condominium Association. Wildlife A full wildlife survey was conducted on November 1, 2021. A songbird survey will be conducted in the spring of 2022. The full wildlife report can be found in Appendix C. An official species list was documented by U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation IPAC was obtained using known ranges of federally listed species in the Project area. A list was also unofficially obtained from the 2016 Colorado Natural Heritage Program database by determining known sightings of sensitive species near Kingfisher Wetland project area. On November 1, 2021, an AloTerra Restoration Services field technician conducted a site visit in order to assess suitable habitat for known listed and sensitive animal species. Table 3 lists provides a record of the federally listed Federally listed species that could occur within the area of the proposed project (20 acres). The table includes (a) the common name of the species (b) the scientific name of the species (c) the status of the species in question (d) whether or not the species should be excluded and (e) the reasoning why the species should be excluded. The reasoning of excluding species from the list of concerned species is given based off a variety of reasons including: 1)No suitable habitat was found during site visit, The range of the species in is such that the species is highly unlikely to not known near occur within the project site; 2)No suitable habitat was found during the site review; and/or 3)No records for the species exist within the project site. Table 3. Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species that may occur or be affected by the actions within the Project. Common Name Species Status Species Excluded Notes, or Reason for Exclusion Mammals Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened No Lynx canadensis Birds Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Yes Grus americana Sterna antillarum Charadrius melodus Fish Scaphirhynchus albus Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Plants Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Spiranthes diluvialis Plantanthera praeclara Phacelia formosula IPAC Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 11 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM) Since 1998, the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) has been federally listed as threatened by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. In Colorado, they are also listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Needs, considered sensitive by the US Forest Service, and critically imperiled according to the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Declining PMJM populations are due to predation, habitat degradation, and fragmentation. In Colorado, the PMJM can be found up to elevations around 7,000 feet east of the Front Range, and west to the shortgrass prairie (USFWS, 2013). Preble’s meadow jumping mice are found in areas with natural hydrological processes that create a dense riparian area with biologically diverse herbaceous plants. PMJM have been found in environments with a variety of plant species, frequently in areas with a thick layer of grasses and forbs that create cover. Studies show that the specific species composition of herbaceous plants is not as important to supporting populations, but that suitable habitat needs to have a higher percentage of ground cover in the vicinity to open water. Most PMJM were found within areas with a higher density of the shrub layer consisting mostly of willows. The mice use adjacent grassy uplands as far as approximately 300 feet from the 100-year floodplain to “hibernate” during the colder months. These nests are called hibernacula and can be found under the cover of snowberry, chokecherry, cottonwoods, gooseberry, and other willow species. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (1973) prevents any funded or authorized agency to take action that would negatively affect lands labeled as PMJM Critical habitat. Critical Habitat is defined by areas currently occupied by the species or potential areas in which the species could establish. In 2013, The Fish and Wildlife Service revised the critical habitat designation for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (shapefiles found at: https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/es/species/mammals/preble/CRITICAL%20HABITAT/CRITICALHABITATindex.htm). The approximate 50,000 acres designated for critical habitat occur adjacent to streams and rivers in the Colorado foothill and mountain regions. PMJM critical habitat is located in Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer and Teller Counties (USFWS, 2014). Currently there is no critical habitat designated in The Project area (USFWS, 2010). Although the Project area does not have optimal habitat due to lack of desired upland vegetation, presence of PMJM cannot be confirmed without a thorough survey of the area. Rare Plants The rare plant survey resulted in no evidence of Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) or Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana var. coloradenesis) in the project area. Based on existing habitat quality, it is unlikely these plants would occupy the project area. Sensitive Species The sensitive species list is derived from the U.S. Forest Service (https://www.fs.usda.gov) and Colorado Parks and Wildlife data on present sensitive species ranges and distributions (USFS, 2005). The Regional Forester’s sensitive list is evaluated by examining viable risk of species; these species are categorized as R2 sensitive, not R2 sensitive, or, not a concern. Suitable habitat was also determined by a site visit conducted by AloTerra Restoration Services on November 01, 2021. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act no activity that “takes, transports, barters, or exports the listed migratory birds or eagles is permissible unless it is sanctioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The sensitive species list includes migratory birds that could use The Project area as a breeding, over-wintering, or stopover site. The species found in Table 4 below are compiled from lists of at-risk species that have potential habitat or occurrence in the Project area, specifically in the vicinity of the documented wetland. The table is organized as followed: (a) The common name of the species, (b) The scientific name of the species, (c) The status of the species in question, (d) Whether or not the species should be excluded, and (e) The reasons why the species should be excluded. Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 12 Table 4. Sensitive species that could occur in the Saddle Ridge Natural Area. Common name Species Status Reasons for exclusion Mammals Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Forest Service Sensitive Yes Found in coniferous forest and mixed pine Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Forest Service Sensitive Yes Habitat requirements are not in range Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in the project site White-tailed prairie dog (Ocynomys leucurus) Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in the project site Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Range does not overlap with project site Swift fox Vulpes velox Forest Service Sensitive No Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Forest Service Sensitive No Cassin’s sparrow Aimophila cassinii Tringa flavipes Cypseloides niger Calcarius ornatus Antigone canadensis Circus cyaneus Buteo swainsoni Ammodramus savannarum Fish Hybognathus plactius Fundulus sciadicus Catostomus latipinnis Amphibians Lithobates pipiens Lithobates blairi Mountain-Prairie Region updated 2017. Migratory bird list was sourced from USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern Other Wildlife As previously discussed, the proposed Project would minimally impact (or have no impact) to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed Species, and Sensitive Species of Concern whose ranges potentially overlap with the Project area. In addition, due to low vegetation species diversity and poor riparian conditions, the Project area does not provide any critical habitat to federally listed or sensitive species. The mature cottonwoods provide some habitat for song birds and raptors in the spring and summer, including great horned owls, American kestrels, western tanagers, dark-eyed juncos, and variety of sparrows. No ground nests or raptor nests were found on the site during site visit of November 01, 2021. There were signs of raccoons (Procyon lotor), great blue herons (Ardea herodias) and coyote (Canis latrans). A young male mule deer was seen along the canal corridor and droppings were found throughout the Project. Many common animal species have been observed throughout the Project including garter snakes, Canadian geese, great horned owls, Eurasian doves, blue jays, Northern flickers, golden finches, and House sparrows. Ornate box turtles and Mallard ducks Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 13 have been sighted in the pond north of the Project. This wetland area and old growth trees could potentially be suitable habitat for songbird nesting/feeding and should therefore be protected during any future construction. Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) Design and Recommendations AloTerra’s concept design for the Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (see Appendix D for plan set) would result in significant ecological uplift of wetland, riparian, and upland areas, providing potential habitat for a great variety of wildlife, including those species listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this report. Forestry Mitigation A formal forestry survey has been completed for the site. All required tree mitigation will be met through the tree mitigation plan developed by the City of Fort Collins Forestry Dept. and JR Engineering. Noxious Weeds A preliminary weed (non-native plants) list is provided in the wetland, riparian, and upland plant community sections above. Of the weeds present, those species of greatest management concern include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae). These species are difficult to eradicate without intensive chemical treatment methods due to their perennial growth habits. The landowners for this Project have requested the use of organic weed control and treatments, which align with their philosophies for the long-term health of the property. Because of the aggressive nature of the non-native species within the NHBZ, we recommend removing the top 8” of soil from the weed dominated areas, which will remove the aboveground biomass (i.e., seed source) and root mass (i.e., reproduction via rhizomes, tillers, and other root buds) for weed species. This will help to diminish weed populations without the use of herbicides. Canada thistle rhizomes can penetrate much deeper, so a formal weed management plan will be developed with certified organic treatment recommendations, as well as methods for spot treating any other weeds that may reestablish. A buffer of 10’ from the top of ditch for the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal should be maintained, so the stability of the berm is not jeopardized. The weed excavated areas will be treated with new topsoil, or amended with organics such as compost and/or slow- release organic fertilizers. These treated areas will be restored with a diversity of native locally-adapted vegetation, per the Concept Design in Appendix D. Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Enhancement The 50’ wide NHBZ, with the western boundary being the existing top of bank of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, will build upon the natural features of the existing property. Currently, three distinct communities exist; wetland/riparian, and upland. By treating this area as described above, the site will be appropriate for native seed and plant containers. Native seed mixes will include wetland, riparian, and two upland mixes (see Appendix D for plant lists). To address the shade created by existing trees, we recommend a full sun mix and a shade-tolerant upland seed mix. Shade-tolerant seed mixes will be broadcast where trees will remain, with exact locations of these mixes to be refined in future design iterations, and once a formal tree inventory and mitigation plan is completed. All seed m ixes will combine grass and grass-like species, shrubs, and flowering forbs to attract pollinators. Native container plants throughout the three zones will also be installed to increase the amount of diversity throughout the NHBZ. Examples include bulrushes and sedges for the wetland and riparian areas, and fruiting shrubs and small trees for the upland areas. To build upon the sustainability goals of AloTerra, the City of Fort Collins, and Polestar, we encourage using as many on- site materials as possible, to minimize the fuel consumption, carbon emissions, and other impacts associated with materials import. This includes, but not limited to, using existing downed trees as features throughout the NHBZ, which can provide diverse habitat for wildlife throughout the corridor, and act as natural benches for visitors. Excavated soil in the NHBZ can be used as on-site fill for development purposes, to reduce the need to import fill to the site. Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 14 Currently, the wetland boundary overlaps with the planned development (Figure 1). Depending on the wetland determination status by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Fort Collins mitigation requirements, AloTerra proposes a wetland design that increases diversity and ecological function. This would be achieved by excavating the wetland to achieve a greater variety of hydrologic conditions (e.g., shallow open water, submergent, emergent, etc.). Topography will also be designed to support mesic meadow and facultative wetland species, which will transition to riparian habitats where willows and mesoriparian/xeroriparian shrubs can be planted (Figure 5). Figure 5. Example wetland cross section. Development Activities The project is currently in the Preliminary Development Plan phase. JR Engineering estimates that construction will start in 2023. Construction should avoid impacting important suitable habitat for sensitive or endangered species. In order to minimally impact sensitive or migratory bird populations, it is important to avoid impacting any potential nesting sites (e.g., cottonwood trees, willow thickets, or areas of high herbaceous vegetation cover). Issues regarding the timing of development-related activities stemming from the ecological character of the area. Because no active raptor nests currently exist on site, and the site does not provide significant migratory bird habitat, it is not likely that spring construction limitations would be imposed. However, we do recommend a site survey prior to construction to confirm that no raptor nests have been established on site since the initial wildlife review. No other issues regarding timing are known at this time. Measures needed to mitigate projected adverse impacts of development on natural habitats and features. During construction there will be setbacks, silt fence, and erosion control to help mitigate any adverse impacts to existing wetland and riparian features, as well as to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal water quality. Summary In summary, we believe that the proposed development would have minimal impact to sensitive or rare wildlife or plants, natural features, and other important ecological functions and conservation elements in the region. The proposed NHBZ would create overall ecological uplift of the site and enhance the quality of plant communities and connectivity of habitat for wildlife. Because the site is currently dominated by invasive species, the value to wildlife is not significant due to minimal structure and function. Ecological Characterization Study, Polestar Village Page 15 Literature Citated Bechard, M.J., Houston, C.S., Sarasola, J.H., and England, A.S., (2010). Sw’inson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), In: The Birds of North America (Rodewald, P. G., [Ed.]), Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species- Account/bna/species/swahaw. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. 2017. Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/fc-plan-draft17.pdf?1495234374 Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (2005). Leopard Frogs: Assessing Habitat Quality for Wildlife Species in Colorado Wetlands. Retrieved from https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/PrioritySpecies/Factsheet-and-Habitat- Scorecard_LeopardFrogs.pdf. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), (n.d.) Species Profiles. Retrieved from http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx Marks, R., Paul, R., Rewa, C., and Peak, M., (2005). Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) Wildlife Habitat Council and Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Grasslands/SwiftFox.pdf Swenson, J. E., K. L. Alt, and R. L. Eng. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildl. Monogr. 95: 1 -46. Slater, G.L. and Rock, C., (2005). Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182007.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Critical Habitat: Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. USFWS Mountain-Prairie Region Endangered Species Program. http://mountainprairie.fw15reblepreble/CRITICAL_HABITAT/CRITIALHABITATindex.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Division of Congressional and Legislative Affairs. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. 4310-55-S U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Frequently Asked Questions and Recommended Conservation Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), the Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis), and the Colorado butterfly plant (Guara neomexicana ssp. coloradensis) from Emergency Flood Response Activities Along Streams, Rivers, or Transportation Corridors in Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado Ecological Services Field Office. September 24, 2013. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), (2015). Sensitive Species List: Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5390116 Woodbridge, B., (1998). Sw’inson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In: The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: A Strategy for Reversing the Decline of Riparian-associated Birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Retrieved from http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html Appendix A: Wetland Delineation Field Forms ; DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION – Great Plains Project/Site: Pole Star Applicant/Owner: AloTerra Restoration Services Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): NA Subregion (LRR): City/County: Fort Collins, Larimer Co. State: CO Section/Township/Range: Local Relief: None Lat: Long: Sampling Date: 11/01/2021 Sampling Point: SP1 Slope (%): less than 1% Datum: n/a Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation, Yes Soil, Yes ; or Hydrology Yes significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? -- Are Vegetation, No answers in Remarks.) Soil, No ; or Hydrology No naturally problematic? . -- (If needed, explain any SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes Hydric Soil Present: Yes Wetland Hydrology Present: Yes Is the sampled area within a wetland: Yes FORM NOTES Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3. Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height. FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology determinations. Remarks: Area is a slight depression on the east side of a berm and man made ditch (Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal). Hydrology likely comes from ditch. Historic aerial imagery does not indicate a wetland present on the site prior to ditch establishment. __ __ __ __ __ __ Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species 1. -- -- that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. -- -- 3. -- -- Total no. of dominant 4. -- -- species across all strata: 3 (B) 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. )Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. -- -- 2. -- -- 3. -- -- 4. -- -- 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. Typha latifolia 2. Juncus balticus 10 Yes 85 Yes OBL FACW 3. Solidago canadensis 1 -- UPL 4. Cirsium arvense 1 -- UPL 5. Phalaris arundinaceae 10 Yes FACW 6. Symphyotrichum laeve 7. 1 -- -- FAC -- 8. -- -- 9. -- -- 10. -- -- 11. -- -- 108 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 -- -- -- -- 0 = Total Cover REMARKS: Wetland area is dominated by baltic rush and canary reed grass with a small patch of cattails. Sampling Point: SP1 Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Cover of: OBL spp: FACW spp: FAC spp: FACU spp: UPL spp: 10 95 1 0 2 Multiply by: x1 = 10 x2 = 190 x3 = 3 x4 = 0 x5 = 10 Column totals: (A) 108 (B) 213 Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1.87 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: _ _ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation _ _ 2. Dominance test is > 50% _ _ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 _ _ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide Supporting data in remarks or attach) _ _ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Remarks: SOILS Profile Description (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10-18 10yr 2/1 98 10yr 4/1 98 7.5YR 5/6 2 7.5yr 5/6 2 C C Silty clay loam 1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 Histosol (A1) Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) Histic epipedon (A2) Sandy redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy mucky mineral (F1) 1cm Muck (A9) Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Thick dark surface (A12) Redox dark surface (F6) Red parent material (TF2) Sandy mucky mineral (S1) Depleted dark surface (F7) Very shallow dark surface (TF12) 2.5 cm Mucky peat or peat (S2) Redox depressions (F8) Other (explain) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present) Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface water (A1) Salt crust (B11) Soil surface cracks (B6) High water table (A2) Aquatic invertebrates (B13) Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) Drainage patterns (B10) Water marks (B1) Dry-season water table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish burrows (C8) Algal mat or crust (B4) Presence of reduced iron (C4) Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) Iron deposits (B5) Thick muck surface (C7) Geomorphic position (D2) Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) Other (explain in remarks) FAC-neutral test (D5) Water stained leaves (B9) Field Observations: Surface water present: No Water table present: Yes Saturation present: Yes Depth (inches): Depth (inches): soil pit filled at -18 inches Depth (inches): at surface Frost-heave hummocks (D7) (LRR F) (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 1 cm muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast prairie redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark surface (S7) (LRR G) High plains depressions (F16) Hydric Soil Present? Yes Sampling Point: SP1 Silty clay loam Soil Chroma and Value for Wetland Soils Per 2018 regional supplement: The following combinations of value and chroma identify a depleted matrix for loamy and clayey material (and sandy material in areas of indicators A11 and A12): 1. Matrix value of 5 or more and chroma of 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 2. Matrix value of 6 or more and chroma of 2 or 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 3. Matrix value of 4 or 5 and chroma of 2, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 4. Matrix value of 4 and chroma of 1, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Common (2 to less than 20 percent) to many (20 percent or more) redox concentrations (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002) are required in soils with matrix colors of 4/1, 4/2, and 5/2 (Figure A1). Redox concentrations include iron and manganese masses and pore linings (Vepraskas 1992). See “contrast” in this glossary for the definitions of “distinct” and “prominent.” Gleyed matrix. A gleyed matrix has one of the following combinations of hue, value, and chroma and the soil is not glauconitic (Figure A2): • 10Y, 5GY, 10GY, 10G, 5BG, 10BG, 5B, 10B, or 5PB with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1; or • 5G with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1 or 2; or • N with value of 4 or more (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Redoximorphic Definitions Concentration: Patches of oxidized iron which can form soft masses and along root channels and other pores. Depletion: Gray or reddish gray colors of soil caused by the loss of iron through translocation. Reduced Matrix: Soils that are saturated and contain ferrous iron at the time of sampling may change color upon exposure to the air, as ferrous iron oxidizes to ferric iron in the presence of oxygen. ; DATA FORM - ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION – Great Plains Project/Site: Pole Star Applicant/Owner: AloTerra Restoration Services Investigator (s): Sarah Smith Landform (Hillslope, Terrace, etc.): NA Subregion (LRR): City/County: Fort Collins, Larimer Co. State: CO Section/Township/Range: Local Relief: None Lat: Long: Sampling Date: 11/01/2021 Sampling Point: SP2 Slope (%): less than 5% Datum: n/a Soil Map Unit Name: NWI Classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Are Vegetation, Yes Soil, Yes ; or Hydrology Yes significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? No Are Vegetation, No answers in Remarks.) Soil, No ; or Hydrology No naturally problematic? . -- (If needed, explain any SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Include a map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes Hydric Soil Present: No Wetland Hydrology Present: No Is the sampled area within a wetland: No FORM NOTES Stratum: 1. Tree stratum – Consists of woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. 2. Sapling/shrub stratum – Consists of woody plants less than 3 in. DBH, regardless of height. 3. Herb stratum – Consists of all herbaceous (non-woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. 4. Woody vines – Consists of all woody vines, regardless of height. FAC-neutral Test for determining Wetland Hydrology (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2010) The FAC-neutral test is performed by compiling a list of dominant plant species across all strata in the community, and dropping from the list any species with a Facultative indicator status (i.e., FAC, FAC–, and FAC+). The FAC-neutral test is met if more than 50 percent of the remaining dominant species are rated FACW and/or OBL. This indicator may be used in communities that contain no FAC dominants. If there are an equal number of dominants that are OBL and FACW versus FACU and UPL, non-dominant species should be considered. This indicator is only applicable to wetland hydrology determinations. Remarks: Upland boundary marker for SP1. __ __ __ __ __ __ Percent of Dominant spp. That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50 (A/B) VEGETATION (USE SCIENTIFIC NAMES) Tree Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. ) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Worksheet Number of dominant species 1. -- -- that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. -- -- 3. -- -- Total no. of dominant 4. -- -- species across all strata: 2 (B) 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover Shrub Stratum (Plot Size: 30 sq. m. )Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status 1. -- -- 2. -- -- 3. -- -- 4. -- -- 5. -- -- 0 = Total Cover -- 1. 2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 -- -- -- -- 0 = Total Cover REMARKS: Area is dominated by canary reedgrass. Sampling Point: SP2 Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % Cover of: OBL spp: FACW spp: FAC spp: FACU spp: UPL spp: 0 85 1 0 25 Multiply by: x1 = 0 x2 = 170 x3 = 3 x4 = 0 x5 = 125 Column totals: (A) 111 (B) 298 Prevalence Index (B/A) = 1.64 Herb Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Status _ _ 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 1. Bromus inermis 25 Yes UPL 2. Juncus balticus 5 -- FACW 3. Phalaris arundinacea 80 Yes FACW 4. Symphuotruchum laeva 1 -- FAC 5. -- -- 6. -- -- 7. -- -- _ _ 2. Dominance test is > 50% _ _ 3. Prevalence index is < 3.01 _ _ 4. Morphological adaptations1 (provide Supporting data in remarks or attach) _ _ 5. Wetland non-vascular plants1 _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (explain) 8. -- -- 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 9. -- -- be present, unless disturbed or problematic 10. -- 11. -- 111 = Total Cover -- Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: Yes Woody Vine Stratum (Plot Size: 1 sq. m.) Absolute Dominant Indicator % Cover Species? Status __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Remarks: Soils are much drier and sandier Remarks: No standing water in soil pit, no staturation in soil strata SOILS Profile Description (describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Sandy clay loam sandy clay loam Remarks 1Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matric, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators (Applicable to all Land Resource Regions unless otherwise indicated) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 Histosol (A1) Sandy gleyed matrix (S4) Histic epipedon (A2) Sandy redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy mucky mineral (F1) 1cm Muck (A9) Loamy gleyed matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Thick dark surface (A12) Redox dark surface (F6) Red parent material (TF2) Sandy mucky mineral (S1) Depleted dark surface (F7) Very shallow dark surface (TF12) 2.5 cm Mucky peat or peat (S2) Redox depressions (F8) Other (explain) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present) Type: Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators Primary Indicators (Minimum of one required. Check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface water (A1) Salt crust (B11) Soil surface cracks (B6) High water table (A2) Aquatic invertebrates (B13) Sparsely vegetated concave surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen sulfide odor (C1) Drainage patterns (B10) Water marks (B1) Dry-season water table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish burrows (C8) Algal mat or crust (B4) Presence of reduced iron (C4) Saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) Iron deposits (B5) Thick muck surface (C7) Geomorphic position (D2) Inundation visible on aerial imagery (B7) Other (explain in remarks) FAC-neutral test (D5) Water stained leaves (B9) Field Observations: Surface water present: No Water table present: No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Frost-heave hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Saturation present: No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Wetland Hydrology Present? No 1 cm muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coast prairie redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark surface (S7) (LRR G) High plains depressions (F16) Hydric Soil Present? No Sampling Point: SP2 0-12 10yr 5/1 100 -- -- 12-16 10YR 4/2 100 -- -- -- -- -- -- Soil Chroma and Value for Wetland Soils Per 2018 regional supplement: The following combinations of value and chroma identify a depleted matrix for loamy and clayey material (and sandy material in areas of indicators A11 and A12): 1. Matrix value of 5 or more and chroma of 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 2. Matrix value of 6 or more and chroma of 2 or 1, with or without redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 3. Matrix value of 4 or 5 and chroma of 2, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings, or 4. Matrix value of 4 and chroma of 1, with 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses and/or pore linings (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Common (2 to less than 20 percent) to many (20 percent or more) redox concentrations (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2002) are required in soils with matrix colors of 4/1, 4/2, and 5/2 (Figure A1). Redox concentrations include iron and manganese masses and pore linings (Vepraskas 1992). See “contrast” in this glossary for the definitions of “distinct” and “prominent.” Gleyed matrix. A gleyed matrix has one of the following combinations of hue, value, and chroma and the soil is not glauconitic (Figure A2): • 10Y, 5GY, 10GY, 10G, 5BG, 10BG, 5B, 10B, or 5PB with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1; or • 5G with value of 4 or more and chroma of 1 or 2; or • N with value of 4 or more (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006b). Redoximorphic Definitions Concentration: Patches of oxidized iron which can form soft masses and along root channels and other pores. Depletion: Gray or reddish gray colors of soil caused by the loss of iron through translocation. Reduced Matrix: Soils that are saturated and contain ferrous iron at the time of sampling may change color upon exposure to the air, as ferrous iron oxidizes to ferric iron in the presence of oxygen. Appendix B: Wetland Delineation Photos Figure 1. Overview of wetland boundary (pink flagging). Figure 2. Sample Point 1 soil pit (LEFT), with standing water at the bottom and Sample Point 2 soil pit (RIGHT). Appendix C: Wildlife Review Polestar Village Wildlife Review Polestar Village Wildlife Review Prepared by: AloTerra Restoration Services, LLC 320 E. Vine Drive Suit 314 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Prepared on: November 01, 2021 Background Polestar Village, formerly Happy Heart Farms (hereafter referred to as the Project), is located in Fort Collins, Colorado in Larimer County (Figure 1). The property is situated to the north of West Elizabeth Street and to the west of South Overland Trail, and is surrounded by residential communities and natural areas. The Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal runs west of the Project site and is lined by Crack willow (Salix fragilis) and Russian Olive (Elaegnus angustifolia). Currently The Project is used for residential and agricultural purposes and is proposed to undergo development for the establishment of the Polestar Village. In November of 2021, AloTerra Restoration Services (AloTerra) delineated 0.05 acres of wetland which occurs north of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal in the southwest corner of The Project. The surface and ground water associated with the farmland flows south towards West Elizabeth Street. Uplands within the Project contains several old growth cottonwood trees (Populus deltoides) and are dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and agricultural crops. Riparian areas are dominated by canary reedgrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) and baltic rush (Juncus balticus), with limited surface water. Figure 1: Polestar Village Wildlife Review Purpose Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species Service’s Information for Planning and Consultation IPAC: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ was obtained by Table 1 Table 1. Common Name Species Status Species Excluded Reason for Exclusion Mammals Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened No Species and habitat are not present. Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Birds Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Yes Critical habitat does not overlap with project site Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with project site Least tern Sterna antillarum Endangered Yes Range does not overlap with project site Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Yes Range does not overlap with project site Fish Polestar Village Wildlife Review Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Yes Species and habitat are not present. Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Plants Colorado butterfly plant Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Ute ladies-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. Western prairie fringed orchid Plantanthera praeclara Threatened Yes Species and habitat are not present. North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula Endangered Yes Found in higher elevation range (8,000-8,300 ft) Sourced from IPAC :http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ website. Note- Some species may be affected downstream from water source. * Federally Listed Species Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (PMJM) Since 1998, the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei Preble’s meadow jumping mice are found in areas with natural hydrological proce year floodplain to “hibernate” during the colder months. These nests are called hibernacula and Fish and Wildlife Service revised the critical habitat designation for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse not have optimal habitat Polestar Village Wildlife Review Rare Plants Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies’Gaura neomexicana var. coloradenesis Sensitive Species Forester’s sensitive list is evaluated by exa of 1918 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act no activity that “takes, transports, barters, or Table 2 Table 2. Common name Species Status Species Excluded Reasons for exclusion Mammals Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Forest Service Sensitive Yes Found in coniferous forest and mixed pine Townsend’s big- eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Forest Service Sensitive Yes Habitat requirements are not in range Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in the Project site White-tailed prairie dog (Ocynomys leucurus) Forest Service Sensitive Yes No colonies were found in the Project site Kit fox Vulpes macrotis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Range does not overlap with project site Swift fox Vulpes velox Forest Service Sensitive No Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Forest Service Sensitive No Cassin’s sparrow Aimophila cassinii Bird of Conservation Concern Yes Range does not overlap with project site Polestar Village Wildlife Review Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Bird of Conservation Concern Yes Range does not overlap with project site Black Swift Cypseloides niger Forest Service Sensitive Yes Habitat requires cliffs limited in Colorado Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Site location does not overlap with species range Sandhill Crane Antigone canadensis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Forest Service Sensitive No Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Federal Species of Concern No Greater sage- grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Found in sage brush habitat Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Forest Service Sensitive Yes Native species range does not meet area requirements Fish Plains Minnow Hybognathus plactius State Endangered Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus latipinnis Forest Service Sensitive Yes Suitable habitat is not evident in project site Amphibians Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens Forest Service Sensitive No Plains leopard frog Lithobates blairi Forest Service Sensitive Yes Range does not overlap with project site Species list was sourced from U.S. Forest Service https://www.fs.usda.gov Rocky Mountain Region and USFWS Migratory birds for the Mountain-Prairie Region updated 2017. Migratory bird list was sourced from USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php. Sensitive Species Details Mammals Swift Fox Vulpes velox include silty loam or loam. The species are not directly reliant on riparian areas and can be found up to 3 Polestar Village Wildlife Review Birds Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus th Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Swainson’s Hawk The Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni (Bechard, 2010). The raptors’ home range varies between about 170 to 21,550 acres depending on the Populus sp.Salix sp.Platanus sp.Juglans sp. 30 feet above ground. AloTerra Restoration Service’s wildlife technician conducted a field assessm and found no nests in the proposed construction area. The Swainson’s Hawk n activities. Polestar Village Wildlife Review Amphibians Northern Leopard Frog Lithobates blairi Other Wildlife (Procyon lotor), Ardea Herodias)Canis latrans) Mitigation Measures Polestar Village Wildlife Review References e. 2005. Critical Habitat: Preble’s Meadow Jumping Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in nd Minimize Impacts to the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), the Ute Ladies’ Polestar Village Wildlife Review Appendix D: 95% Design 95% Design DATE: SHEET NO.: PR E P A R E D F O R : PR E P A R E D B Y : GENERAL NOTES: 1.The contractor shall locate all utilities on-site, coordinate construction with all utility owners and be responsible for protecting all utilities during construction. The contractor must schedule any required utility adjustments with the utility owner to eliminate conflicts. 2.The contractor shall conform to all plan and specifications shown herein and notify the project engineer immediately upon the discovery of conflicts or changes not consistent with the contract documents. 3.The contractor shall have copies of any required permits on site at all times and comply with all requirements of all permits at all times. These permits include any federal, state, or local permits. 4.The contractor is responsible for, but not limited to, submitting plans for delivery and storage of materials and site equipment as well as for site access, erosion control, traffic control, water control and de-watering plans, prior to construction. 5.The contractor is responsible for protecting all existing site infrastructure and vegetation as directed by the project engineer, including but not limited to, concrete, asphalt, site circulation paths, curb and gutter, trees, shrubs, grasses and all soft or hardscape outside of the immediate construction area and its replacement in the event of damage to equal or better condition. 6.The contractor is responsible for construction survey including, but not limited to, construction staking and protection of control point locations and elevations. Control points shall be the responsibility of the contractor to replace in the event of damage/lost control. 7.In areas of disturbance, the contractor shall remove and stockpile the top 6" of topsoil and replace and re-vegetate after construction. Salvaged topsoil shall be stockpiled in areas that shall not interfere with construction phases and at least 15 feet away from areas of concentrated flows or pavement. The slopes of the stockpile shall not exceed 2:1 horizontal to vertical. A silt fence or other adequate erosion control shall be installed around the perimeter of each stockpile. Topsoil from any riparian areas shall be stockpiled separately from other topsoil and shall be reinstalled in riparian areas. 8.If previously unknown historic or archeological remains are discovered during construction, the contractor must immediately stop work and notify both the owner's representative and prime contractor of these items and work may not commence until written approval is given to proceed. 9.The contractor must be available and provide all necessary resources for periodic inspections from regulatory agencies, including but not limited to the United States army corps of engineers or the Colorado Department of Public Health and environment, at any time during the construction time period. This period includes pre- construction and post-construction. 10.The contractor must meet all requirements for bmp's as described in the construction specifications and permits. 11.The contractor is responsible for monitoring all site safety requirements and regulations through the entire duration of on-site construction activities. 12.The contractor shall obtain at their expense any and all discharge permits necessary to perform the work described herein, which may be subject to the provisions of the national pollutant discharge elimination system permits. 13.The contractor is responsible for managing a safe site in accordance with local codes and regulations. 1. Follow external SWMP completed by JR Engineering. 1.All seed must be inspected by the contractor prior to installation, and all tags must be maintained for documentation. All seed must be labeled as "certified" by the Colorado seed growers association and shall not include the presence of noxious or invasive species prohibited under the Colorado seed act. Seed must be free of Colorado state noxious and Colorado A and B listed weed propagules shall not contain more than 0.01% by dry weight of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), or Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis). Project engineer or their representative shall approve all seed mixes for weed content and substitutions before seed is purchased. Seed identification and certification tags shall be provided to the project manager for review and approval prior to use. 2.A restoration ecologist should be consulted when reviewing weed-free seed, soil, mulch, and soil amendment products, including the list of potential weeds present in the product in question. 3.Seeding shall be broadcast at rates listed in seed mix, raked into the soil surface to a depth of between 0.125 and 0.25 inches deep, and covered with mulch at a rate that attains 70% soil coverage and is no deeper than 1". 4.THE SEED MIXES SHALL BE APPLIED TO AREAS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SET. 5.The time of year seeding is to occur shall be October 1 through May 1. 6.Prepare soil as necessary and appropriate for native seed mix species through loosening and addition of amendments that promote water absorption and release, then seed in two directions to distribute seed evenly over entire area. Drill seed all indicated areas as soon as possible after completion of grading operations. 7.If changes are to be made to seed mix based on site conditions, then approval must be provided by city environmental planner prior to ordering seed mixes. Any ordered seed mixes that do not meet design intent will be rejected at the owner's or contractor's expense. 8.Appropriate native seeding equipment will be used (standard turf seeding equipment or agriculture equipment shall NOT be used). 9.Drill seed application recommended per specified application rate. Refer to native seed mix table for species, percentages and application rates. 10.Prepare a weed management plan to ensure that weeds are properly managed before, during, and after seeding activities. 11.After seeding the area shall be covered with crimped straw, wood straw, erosion control blanket, or other appropriate materials as indicated in the plan set. Plastic-based erosion control materials (i.e., Plastic-welded blankets) shall not be used without express permission from the environmental planner as these materials have proven to cause wildlife entrapment issues. 12.Where needed, temporary irrigation shall be provided until seed is germinated. Generally speaking, after germination, irrigation can be reduced by 50% for the next month, and then reduced by another 50% for the following month, until the desired level of vegetation establishment is reached. Note that proper irrigation schedule will vary depending on the nature of natural precipitation regime. Confer with experienced local restoration ecologist or client's desired responsible contractor to determine appropriate irrigation schedule. 13.Contractor shall monitor seeded area for proper irrigation, erosion control, germination, and reseeding as needed to establish cover. 14.The approved native seed mix area is intended to be maintained in a natural like landscape aesthetic. Do not mow during hot, dry periods. Do not mow lower than 6 to 8 inches in height to avoid inhibiting native plant growth. 15.Native seed area will be considered established when seventy percent of pre-site development vegetative cover is reached with less than ten percent of cover consisting of noxious weeds, no bare spots larger than one foot square, and/or until deemed established by city planning services and erosion control. 16.The developer and/or landscape contractor is responsible for adequate seedling coverage and growth at the time of final stabilization, as defined by state and local agencies. If final stabilization is not achieved to the satisfaction of the agency, the developer and/or landscape contractor shall be responsible for additional corrective measures to satisfy final vegetative requirements for closeout. 17.Proper labeling for each bale or lot of mulch used is required. Project manager has the right to inspect and reject bales if they are suspected to contain unacceptable weed contents. Specifically, smooth brome (Bromus inermis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis), fireweed (Kochia scoparia), and other aggressive exotic plant species shall not be present in mulches used for the project. A restoration ecologist or botanist should be consulted when reviewing the weed-free mulch product. A list of potential weeds present in the mulch and the product information shall be provided to the project manager and project designer for review and approval prior to use. Hay, regardless of the source, shall not be used as a mulch. E1E1 Re v e g e t a t i o n a n d C o n s t r u c t i o n N o t e s EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES: REVEGETATION/BIOENGINEERING NOTES: 11/22/2024 Po l e s t a r V i l l a g e , F o r t C o l l i n s , C O Piezometer 1 M a y GW = 5106.8' June GW = 5106.8' July GW = 5106.8' Sept. GW = 5107.3' MW-1 (AloTerra) M a y GW = 5102.15' June GW = 5101.39' Aug . GW = 5101.71' Piezometer 6 M a y GW = 5113.7' June GW = 5113.7' July GW = 5114.2' Aug. GW = 5113.6' Sept. GW = 5113.2' MW-2 (AloTerra) M a y GW = 5116.07' June GW = 5115.29' Aug . GW = 5114.65' 0 100 200 300 ft --I --------------------------------------------------------· .... I ----1.-------.1.---------.1 LEGEND TH-3 (AloTerra) M a y GW = 5114.05' Aug GW* = 5116.55' *wa ter poolin g in nea rby wetla nd • • • ' ' -"'ff-'"'-"-'" ""-"-"-'--I" 1-T--"-=-·=-"-'r'" -=· "--"" •-=...,• -=· ,,_,,_. •--=...,• -l ----- -- z ....J UJ Cl) ---------- TH-1 Piezometer 2 M a y GW = 5096.3' ��• June GW = 5095.3' July GW = 5095.8' Sept. GW = 5095.8' Piezometer 4 M a y GW = 5102.9' June GW = 5102.4' July GW = 5102.9' Sept. GW = 5102.4' Piezometer s M a y GW = 5109.0' �;;;....1..-----l June GW = 5109.0' July GW = 5109.5' ,._,____., o "'-----l Aug GW = 5107.7' :aa Sept. GW = 5109.5' -.. -----... "' ----------·-... • D Existing Wetla nd so' Buffer ,_____, � Impacts Within so' Buffer DATE: Tempora ry Impa ctsD Wetland Boundary � Wetland Boundar y -Impa ct •Explora tory Boring •Tempora ry PiezometerD S a ddle Ridge Na tura l AreaD Property Boundaries ··-·-Project Boundary •• • • • Right of Wa y � -NHBZ Boundary .-----'------___,,_-------'i""i' -• • • • Plea sa nt Va I ley Ca na I Toe of Ba nk Piezometer 3 M a y GW = 5095.0' June GW = 5093.5' July GW = 5095.5' Sept. GW = 5095.0' -Pleasant Valley Canal Top of Bank -JR Engineering Linework -Infrastructure 0 c::: f---------------1 � u JAERGER CT Natural Habitat Buffer Zone Feature Acres 50' Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (Required per city code) 1.64 L ¾----1Prop osed N a tura l H a bita t Buffer Zone (Desig ned)1.73 ,_______, 0:::0•• ,.__------:--:-:-::-:-:-::-:--:--:;:;:::;;:----------nn-.:n-TTm.......-.---------'-----,,,.r,c-r:rr,' ST LL ---- W P LUM ST 0LU a:: .,.--------1� Wetland Disturbance and Mitigation Feature Acres Total existing wetland and 50' buffer (Needed wetland) 0.464 Existin wetla nd 0.061 50' Buffer a round existin wetla nd 0.404 Direct im a cts to existin wetla nd 0.032 Im a cts within 50' buffer 0.266 LU a::a. Tern era wetla nd im a cts for miti a tion 0.169 ::;.: LP _ro::....::p...:.o..:..se.:....:d_w 7 e::::t--.la=-n=-d=--M�i...:..ti=-ga.:....t:.....::io_n .....:(:.....Dles=ig=n=e=d=w=e=t=la=n=d) j- ___ __JT__:O_. S.:....4TO _ __J--l � �LUa:: c.. EPSG: 2231 NADB3 Colorado North 1---------1SH EET N 0.: 95% Design EE2 We t l a n d I m p a c t s a n d M i t i g a t i o n 11/22/2024 Po l e s t a r V i l l a g e , F o r t C o l l i n s , C O Piezometer 1 May GW = 5106.8' June GW = 5106.8' July GW = 5106.8' Sept. GW = 5107.3' Wetland 3 (North) Feature ,___,Hydrologic Point of Reference Emergent (-0.25 to 0.25') Mesic Meadow 0.25 to 0.75' Facultative 0.75 to 1.75' Piezometer 6 May GW = 5113.7' June GW = 5113.7' July GW = 5114.2' Aug. GW = 5113.6' Sept. GW = 5113.2' MW-2 (AloTerra) May GW = 5116.07' June GW = 5115.29' Aug. GW = 5114.65' Elevation ft. asl 5114.00 5113.75 -5114.25 5114.25 -5114.75 5114.75 -5115.75 TH-3 (AloTerra) May GW = 5114.05' Aug GW* = 5116.55' *water pooling in nearbywetland • • 0.--1 ___ ,or--1 ° ---20r--1 ° ------,31 ° ft --------i LEG E N D TH-1 Piezometer 2 May GW = 5096.3' ��-• June GW = 5095.3'July GW = 5095.8' Sept. GW = 5095.8' Wetland 2 (Middle) Feature Elevation ft. asl Hydrologic Point of Reference 5115.25 Emergent (-0.25 to 0.0') 5115.00 -5115.25 Mesic Meadow 0.0 to 0.50' 5115.25 -5115.75 5115.75 -5116.50 5116.50 + Piezometer s May GW = 5109.0' �;;;.J.. _ _J June GW = 5109.0' Piezometer 3 May GW = 5095.0' June GW = 5093.5' July GW = 5095.5' Sept. GW = 5095.0' >-----------< =- -Emergent Mesic Meadow Facultative � Raingarden Shade Tolerant □Upland•Exploratory Boring•Temporary PiezometerD Saddle Ridge Natural Area D Property Boundaries -----Project Boundary -----Right of Way -NHBZ Boundary-----Pleasant Valley Canal Toe of Bank -Pleasant Valley Canal Top of Bank DATE: -JR Engineering Linework -Infrastructure ....___ __ _J ci:::0 0 LU 0::: �--....1� LU 0::: a. July GW = 5109.5' '--L../ o "'-----J Aug GW = 5107.7' :aa Sept. GW = 5109.5'Wetland 1 (South) ::;.: cc .... _-----.. --..-.. -.. .. ------...... ---- Feature Hydrologic Point of Reference Emergent (0.0 to 0.50') Mesic Meadow 0.50 to 1.25' Fa cultative 1.25 to 2.00' U land 2.00' + Elevation ft. asl 5115.75 5115.75 -5116.25 5116.25 -5117.00 5117.00 -5117.75 5117.75 + C------' 0 LU 0::: LU 0::: c.. EPSG: 2231 NADB3 Colorado North f---------1SH EET N 0.: Po l e s t a r V i l l a g e , F o r t C o l l i n s , C O 95% Design EE3 We t l a n d M i t i g a t i o n - H y d r o s e r e s 11/22/2024 " "Raingarden A" -Refer to specifications on ES BB • No wetland grading shall occur within -------i within 5' of tree trunks "Raingarden A" -Refer to specifications on ES O "'------__, ., .. � o�� --.......... .. ---.. .. -.------...... W PLUM ST .. ---.. LEGEND L D Saddle Ridge Natural Area D Property Boundaries DATE: +Upland Shade Tolerant Woody Containers •Facultative Tree/Shr ub Container •Woody Cutting -= = Emergent Containers Mesic Meadow Containers Facultative Seed and Containers Upland -Shade Tolerant SeedD Upland Seed � Raingarden Seed •Emergent / Mesic Seed ••••• Project Boundary-----Right of Way _______,, -NHBZ Boundary -----Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Toe of Bank JAERGER -Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Top of Bank -JR En ineerin Linework -Infrastructure---- r ;;c CJ 0 100 I W PLUM ST Refer to soil ammendment specifications on page ES. 200 ft I W PLUM ST ci::: 0 ,-------l LL 0 LU0:::� LU0:::a. ::;.: cc 0 LU0::: t---------1 � LU0:::c.. EPSG: 2231 NADB3 Colorado North SHEET NO.: 95% Design EE4 Pl a n t i n g P l a n 11/22/2024 Po l e s t a r V i l l a g e , F o r t C o l l i n s , C O --------------------------------------------------------· ''''z ....J LEGEND •"'1fllr-" .._,,_ •• .._,,_ •• fl-"-=-•=·"-¥-"·=··=··=··=··=· ----l UJ Cl) i-------------1t-----�� Agricultural Straw OR Wood Straw DATE: • ----- -- :aa ., I I ::> g ---------- _____ ........ . -----------� ...... ..... ----. • � l),v� Erosion Control Blanket (CC4) � D Saddle Ridge Natural Area D Prop erty Boundaries • ••• • Project Boundary ••••• Right of Way PL -NHBZ Boundary -JR En ineerin Linework -Infrastructure 0 100 200 300 ft I JAERGER CT Cc::: f---------------1 � u Soil Surface Protection Notes -Mulch must be able to withstand windspeeds up to 60 mph and remain in place. -Agricultural straw or wood straw shall be used for surface mulch on all seeded and planted areas with slopes less steep than 3H:1Y. I 1-----1 ci::: T � 0LU 0::: 1------1 � LU 0::: c.. 1-----1-Agricultural straw must be spread at 2,500 lbs/ AC, crimped, and tackified with guar gum at a rate of 60 lbs/ AC. -Wood straw shall be spread at a 60% coverage rate. -CC4 Erosion Control Blanket shall be used for surface protection on all seeded and planted areas with slopes steeper than 3H:1Y. -The placement of surface protection over seeded areas shall ::;.: 1----------, occur a maximum of 96 hours after seeding. Each shrub or tree cc 1-----1 0 f-------1 planting shall be treated with mulch accoriding to typical details. � �Mulch shall be kept 1 - 2 inches away from stems of shrubs and �c.. trees. Herbaceous plants shall not be mulched, except where 1---EP-SG-: -223-, -NA_D_s3----1 indicated on the plan set. Colorado North -Certified weed free mulch shall be used in all situations. �----,-------,-----------:.---------,-----,--------,-------15HEET NO.: 95% Design 11/22/2024 So i l S u r f a c e P r o t e c t i o n Po l e s t a r V i l l a g e , F o r t C o l l i n s , C O EE5 e e Q;l , e • e e · e e e e e e e l' --------------------------------------------------------· ''''•"'1fllr-" .._,,_ •• .._,,_ •• fl-"-=-•=·"-¥-"·=··=··=··=··=· ----l • • • • • ----... .. ----------"'••0--•• •• ' •. ------- :aa I I z ....J C c::: LEGEND UJ Cl) r-----------i-----� ....J....J .... Smooth Brome Treatment 0 Russian Olive Removal and Replacement 0 Crack Willow Removal and Replacement DATE: ---------- . .. :E :;;2 Tree -Preser ve in Place D Property Boundaries Proposed Grading -----Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Toe of Bank t--------.1 -Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Top of Bank • •••• Project Boundary -----Rig ht of Way >-------NHBZ Boundary JR Engineering Lin ework -Infrastr uctureD Saddle Rid e Natural Area 0 100 200 300 ft -1 -----1 -----1----1 C JAERGER CT ' , -----I ci::: W PLUM ST W PLUM ST W PLUM ST � 1---�---1 Smooth Brome Treatment 1)Outside of dripline areas, excavate sod a minimum 6 and maximum 8 inches deep. Excavated sod to be stored in a pile and covered for conversion into compost. 2)There is to be no excavation of sod within 6 inches of tree driplines. Within tree driplines, cover smooth brome with cardboard and place a minimum 6 and maximum 8 inches of excavated sod, root-side up on top of cardboard. Tree Replacement L---11) Noxious trees should be treated via herbicide injection prior to removal to reduce herbicide usage and prevent re -sprouts. 2)All trees must be replaced with native tree species at a 2:1 ratio or greater following the layout in sheet E4, and species t----�---.J in sheet E 9. 0 LU0::: � LU0:::a. ::;.: cc 0 LU0::: � LU0:::a. EPSG: 2231 NADB3 Colorado North 1--------1SHEET NO.: We e d M a n a g e m e n t E6 95% Design 11/22/2024 Po l e s t a r V i l l a g e , F o r t C o l l i n s , C O 12361 G: \ S H A R E D D R I V E S \ P R O J E C T S \ P O L E S T A R R E S T O R A T I O N \ M A P S _ P R O J E C T \ C 3 D \ M O D E L \ D E S I G N \ W O R K I N G \ P O L E S T A R W E T G R A D I N G . D W G | J W H I T | S A V E D : T u e s d a y , S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 2 4 1 : 4 4 : 2 1 P M | A C A D . C T B | | P L O T T E D : T u e s d a y , S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 2 4 1 : 5 9 : 0 6 P M 1" = 61' 1" = 123' SCALE (34"X22"): SCALE (17"X11"): SCALE IN FEET 0 SHEET NUMBER OF DATE: DR A W N B Y : CH E C K E D B Y : AP P R O V E D B Y : E10E7 09/10/2024 WE T L A N D G R A D I N G P L A N (S u p p l e m e n t a l t o J R E n g i n e e r i n g ) Po l e s t a r V i l l a g e 95 % C o n s t r u c t i o n Dr a w i n g s Fo r t C o l l i n s , C O XX X XX XX ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- AP P R V DE S C R I P T I O N RE V 95% Design DATE: SHEET NO.: PR E P A R E D F O R : PR E P A R E D B Y : Seed mixes, acreages, and percent mix are subject to minor adjustments based on vendor availability and updated data from piezometer readings throughout the growing season. E8 Se e d M i x e s 95% Design Po l e s t a r V i l l a g e , F o r t C o l l i n s , C O 11/22/2024 DATE: SHEET NO.: PR E P A R E D F O R : PR E P A R E D B Y : E9 Pl a n t P a l e t t e 95% Design Po l e s t a r V i l l a g e , F o r t C o l l i n s , C O 11/22/2024 DATE: SHEET NO.: PR E P A R E D F O R : PR E P A R E D B Y : SHRUB PLANTING CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE 25 - 50% Deeper than rootball 2x Rootball diameter NOTES: 1.Broken or crumbling rootballs will be rejected. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Care should be taken not to damage the shrub or rootball when removing it from its container. Backf ll around rootball with soil that does not exceed specif cations in restoration notes. Excavate planting pit 2x the diameter fo the rootball and 25-50% deeper than height of rootball. Add backf ll around rootball in 2” layers, watering each layer before applying the next of soil. Add 2” of mulch to cover 18” of the ground/dripline, leaving 1” open around trunk of shrub. Use part of the excavated soil to build an irrigation berm at the edge of dripline, about 1-2” high and 3-4” wide. Import soil as needed from nearby harvest sites. 2x depth of mulch Irrigation berm Undisturbed soil Amended backf ll Container shrub E10 Ty p i c a l s 95% Design Po l e s t a r V i l l a g e , F o r t C o l l i n s , C O 11/22/2024 Appendix E: USACE Jurisdictional Determination Letter DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OMAHA DISTRICT DENVER REGULATORY OFFICE, 9307 SOUTH WADSWORTH BOULEVARD LITTLETON, COLORADO 80128-6901 November 1, 2022 RE: Approved Jurisdictional Determination, Pole Star Community, Corps File No. NWO-2022-01369-DEN Mrs. Sarah Smith AloTerra Restoration Services 320 East Vine Drive Ste. 314 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Mrs. Smith: This letter is in reference to the property located at approximately 40.577°N, -105.129°W, in Larimer County, Colorado. The submittal dated September 21, 2022, on behalf of Pole Star, consists of a request for an Approved Jurisdictional Determination for the above project. The project area has been reviewed in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act under which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material, and any excavation activity associated with a dredge and fill project in waters of the United States. Based on a review of available documentation and an October 26, 2022, site visit, we have determined that the project site does not contain waters of the United States. A Department of the Army (DA) permit is not required for the discharge of dredged or fill material, and any excavation activity associated with a dredge and fill project into this resource under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The JD is attached to this letter. If you are not in agreement with the JD decision, you may request an administrative appeal under regulation 33 CFR 331, by using the attached Appeal Form and Administrative Appeal Process form. The request for appeal must be received within 60 days from the date of this letter. It is not necessary to submit a Request for Appeal if you do not object to the JD. This JD is valid for a period of five years from the date of this letter, unless new information warrants revisions of the JDs before the expiration date, or unless the Corps has identified, after a possible public notice and comment, that specific geographic areas with rapidly changing environmental conditions merit re-verification on a more frequent basis. 2 If there are any questions, please feel free to contact David Liccione at (720) 922- 3841 or by e-mail at David.J.Liccione@usace.army.mil and reference Corps File No. NWO-2022-01369-DEN. Sincerely, Kiel Downing Chief, Denver Regulatory Office Enclosures: Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form (November 1, 2022) Notice of Administrative Appeal Options