Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCLWD GOLDEN CURRANT WATER LINE - FDP200026 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTPage 1 Biological Resources Memorandum Date: April 24, 2019 To: Chris Pletcher, PE, Project Manager, CivilWorx, LLC. From: Pam Wegener, Biologist, Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Subject: Biological Resources Memorandum, Golden Currant Waterline Project, Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Introduction The Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD) is planning to install a new 20-inch waterline directly east of Horsetooth Reservoir in Fort Collins, Colorado (Golden Currant Waterline Project; “project”). CivilWorx, LLC is providing the design services and Pinyon Environmental, Inc. (Pinyon), is completing environmental support services for the project. The project is located mostly within Maxwell Natural Area and an adjacent City of Fort Collins Open Space parcel. As such, the project will require an easement from the City of Fort Collins (City) and must comply with the City’s Resolution 2012-001 City of Fort Collins Natural Areas and Conserved Land Easement Policy. To assist with project compliance of federal, state, and local environmental regulations, including the City’s Resolution 2012-001, Pinyon has conducted a biological resource assessment for the project. This Biological Resources Memorandum serves to document the results of that assessment, provide an analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed project on sensitive species, and recommend mitigation measures and next steps based on potential project impacts. Project Description and Location This project will install a new 20-inch-diameter waterline approximately six feet underground. The typical trench section will be about six-feet wide with a trench box. Soil stockpiles, vehicle traffic, and surface disturbance will be limited to 30 feet on either side of the waterline (project area). Conventional excavation equipment, including diesel-powered hydraulic excavators and front-end loaders will be used to construct the new waterline. The project location is shown in Figure 1 and described in Table 1. Table 1 Project Location City/County Fort Collins/Larimer U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Horsetooth Reservoir, Colorado 1962, revised 1992 (USGS, 1992) Section, Township, and Range (6th Principal Meridian) Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 69 West Approximate Average Elevation of Project (feet above mean sea level) 5,200 Center Location of Project in Decimal Degrees (WGS84) 40.568684°, -105.144588° Page 2 Methods Pinyon conducted an initial desktop review of biological resources in the project area using Google Earth aerial imagery, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Tracking Lists of threatened and endangered species, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Threatened and Endangered list, CPW Species Activity Mapping data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) System, and the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Mapper (Google Earth Pro, 2019; CNHP, 2018; CPW, 2019; CPW, 2018; USFWS, 2019; USFWS, 2018). Following the initial desktop review, Pinyon visited the site on April 4, 2019, to assess the project area for biological resources. Photos and field notes were used to document the general habitat conditions (Attachment – Photographic Log). Pinyon assessed the following during the site visits: • General habitat and vegetation. • Habitat suitability for federally listed threatened and endangered species. • Habitat suitability for state-listed threatened, endangered, and Species of Special Concern. • Habitat for migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), including raptors within 0.5 mile of the project area. • Den sites for red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), coyotes (Canis latrans), and badgers (Taxidea taxus) within 300 feet of the project area. • Noxious weeds. • Waters of the U.S., including wetlands and non-wetland waters. Wetlands were mapped and delineated in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory, 1987; USACE, 2010). Wetlands were identified by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation (as determined by vegetation indicators specified in USACE, 2010, in which vegetation may be characterized as “obligate” [OBL], “facultative wetland” [FACW], “facultative” [FAC], or “upland” [UPL]); hydric soils (as determined by soil indicators specified in USACE, 2010); and wetland hydrology (as determined by hydrology indicators specified in USACE, 2010). Boundaries of non-wetland waters were evaluated using field indicators for the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Wetland boundaries and the OHWM were recorded in the field with sub-meter accuracy using ArcGIS Collector paired with an Arrow 100 Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Receiver. Results General Habitat and Vegetation The western end of the project area includes FCLWD water tanks and an access road to the water tanks. The project area continues east through Maxwell Natural Area and an adjacent space open space parcel and ends just northwest of the West Prospect Road and South Overland Trail intersection. Most of this area is used recreationally by hikers and bicyclists. Although there are many pedestrians, the area is generally outside the limits of vehicular traffic and has relatively low levels of noise and light compared with the surrounding landscape. Wildlife noted during the site visit included deer (Odocoileus sp.), Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). Coyote scat and tracks were also noted within the project area. Page 3 Except for a small drainage swale northwest of the intersection between West Prospect Road and South Overland Trail, most of the project area consisted of uplands and was dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis) (Photo 1 in Photographic Log). Other herbaceous species noted in the upland areas included common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), downy brome (Bromus tectorum), intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), purple threeawn (Aristida purpurea) redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), twistspine prickly pear (Opuntia macrorhiza), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Several shrubs and trees were noted in low densities throughout the project area uplands, including rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), soapweed yucca (Yucca glauca), three leaf sumac (Rhus trilobata), plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). One upland swale was noted within the project area and was vegetated by smooth brome (Photo 2 in Photographic Log). Wetland vegetation was uncommon within the project area, and generally present only within the drainage swale northwest of the intersection between West Prospect Road and South Overland Trail. Wetland vegetation in this area was dominated by coyote willow (Salix exigua) and bentgrass (Agrostis sp.). Federally Listed Species Based on a review of the USFWS online IPaC System, there are 13 federally listed (threatened or endangered) species with the potential to occur in, or be impacted by, projects that occur within or near the project area (USFWS, 2019). Five of these species occur downstream of the project area and could be impacted by projects that result in water depletions to the South Platte River or its tributaries: the interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), piping plover (Charadrius melodus), whooping crane (Grus americana), and western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara). Any potential water use from the project would be from a permitted water source; thus, no further consultation with the USFWS for these five downstream species is required. Pinyon evaluated the potential for each of the remaining species to occur in the project area based on a review of habitat assessment and species distributions. (Table 2). Table 2 Potential for Federally Listed Species to Occur in the Project Area Common Name Species Federal Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in Study Area Birds Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Mature, old-growth forests that possess complex structural components; canyons, riparian and conifer communities. None. Suitable habitat does not occur in the project area. Fish Greenback Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki ssp. stomias Threatened Cold, clear, oxygenated streams of moderate gradient. None. Suitable habitat does not occur in the project area. Page 4 Common Name Species Federal Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in Study Area Mammals Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Uneven-aged stands with relatively open canopies and well-developed understories of coniferous forests. None. Suitable habitat does not occur in the project area. Elevations in the project area are lower than the species’ range. North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Proposed Threatened Boreal forests, tundra, and western mountainous regions distant from dense human populations. None. Suitable habitat does not occur in the project area. Preble's meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened Along permanent or intermittent streams in areas with herbaceous cover and adequate cover of shrubs and trees. None. The project area is not within CPW-mapped occupied range for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and does not contain USFWS- mapped critical habitat (CPW, 2018; USFWS, 2010). There are no streams with thick vegetative cover within the project area; therefore, suitable habitat does not occur within the project area. Plants Colorado Butterfly Page 5 Common Name Species Federal Status Habitat Potential for Occurrence in Study Area Ute ladies'- tresses orchid Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Sub-irrigated alluvial soils along streams; open meadows on floodplains including riparian areas. None. Suitable habitat does not occur in the project area. Wetland vegetation is only found within a roadside drainage swale; there are no open meadows or floodplains within the project area. State Listed Species and State Species of Special Concern Based on a review of the CPW Threatened and Endangered List, CPW Species Activity Mapping data, and the CNHP Tracking List, there are state listed species and state Species of Special Concern with the potential to be impacted by work occurring in Larimer County (CPW, 2019; CPW, 2018; CNHP, 2018). These species are the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus; Species of Special Concern [SC]), black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus; SC), Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia; State-listed as Threatened [ST]), Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile; SC), Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (ST), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus; SC), northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens; SC), orangethroat darter (Etheostoma spectabile; SC), and plains minnow (Hybognathus placitus; State Endangered [SE]). Due to lack of suitable habitat within or near the project area, Iowa darter, mountain sucker, northern leopard frog, orangethroat darter, plains minnow, and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse are not expected to occur in the project area. However, Bald Eagle, Burrowing Owl, and black-tailed prairie dogs have the potential to occur near the project area. The Bald Eagle is a state Species of Special Concern (not a statutory category) and is also protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the MBTA. The project area is within mapped winter range (CPW, 2018). Winter and summer forage for Bald Eagles are mapped along Horsetooth Reservoir, which is approximately 0.4 mile from the project area (CPW, 2018). However, because the project area footprint is small compared with the area traveled by this wide-ranging species, potential impacts to Bald Eagles are expected to be minor. Black-tailed prairie dogs may also be present in grassland habitats like those noted in the project area. However, no black-tailed prairie dogs or Burrowing Owls were noted during the site visit. Additionally, no burrows were noted during the site visit. As Burrowing Owls require burrows for nesting, no Burrowing Owls are expected to nest within the project area. Migratory Birds The MBTA protects migratory birds, their active nests, and their eggs (except for pigeons, starlings, and some other non-native birds). In Colorado, most nesting and rearing activities occur between April 1 and August 31, but raptors may nest as early as February. These dates are guidelines and nesting birds are protected at all times. Cliff faces within 0.5 mile of the project area may provide potential nesting sites for Golden Eagle (Aqulia chrysaetos) and large trees within 0.5 mile of the project area may provide nesting sites for tree-nesting raptors habituated to human presence. One potential raptor nest was noted during the site visit approximately 0.12 mile south of the project area (“Nest 1” in Figure 2; Photo 3 in Photographic Log). The nest was in good condition and about 40 feet high in a plains cottonwood next to a pond in private property. The nest appeared to be inactive (i.e., did not contain eggs or young) during the time of the site visit. Page 6 Within the project area, smaller trees, shrubs, and grasses provide numerous potential nest sites for non- raptor migratory birds. One migratory bird nest was noted within the project area near the drainage swale (“Nest 2” in Figure 2; Photo 4 in Photographic Log). The nest was in good condition and was constructed approximately 15 feet high in a plains cottonwood tree. The nest was inactive during the site visit. Noxious Weeds The Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) classifies the plant species it identifies as noxious weeds into three categories: List A, List B, and List C (CDA, 2017). List A species are designated by the Commissioner of the CDA for eradication. List B species are those species that are managed to stop continued spread. List C species are weed species that are not required to be managed by local jurisdictions but are monitored to provide additional education and research. Noxious weed species noted in the project area included common mullein (List C), downy brome (List C), musk thistle (List B), redstem filaree (List C), and Russian olive (List B). Although these were the only noxious weed species observed during the site visit, it is likely that other noxious weeds are present, as many of these species are difficult to detect in early April when the site visit was conducted. Den Sites No den sites for red foxes, coyotes, or badgers were noted within 300 feet of the project area. Waters of the U.S. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates WUS, which include wetlands and non-wetland waters. Impacts to these features require permitting through the USACE. During the site visit, one non-wetland water (Dixon Canal) and one wetland feature (WL-1) were noted. Page 7 Dixon Canal Dixon Canal is an earthen canal oriented north-south along a trail in the central portion of the project area and is represented by a dotted blue line on the USGS Horsetooth Reservoir 7.5 Minute Quadrangle (Figure 2; Photo 5 in Photographic Log; USGS, 1992). At the time of the site visit, the canal had a continuous bed and bank within the project area. The bed was dry and unvegetated and consisted of clay to cobble-sized material. No wetland vegetation or wetlands were noted near the canal. The canal was approximately 0.285 acre (12,408 square feet) and 1,100 linear feet within the project area. When the canal contains water, water flows south past the project area into either Dixon Reservoir or Dixon Creek. Water from Dixon Creek ultimately discharges into the Cache la Poudre River, a traditionally navigable water (TNW). Therefore, Dixon Creek is likely jurisdictional; however, only the USACE has the authority to make final determinations regarding jurisdiction, permitting, and mitigation. Wetland 1 At the time of the site visit, wetland 1 (WL-1) was a 0.017-acre (745 square feet) patch of bentgrass and coyote willow located in a roadside drainage swale northwest of the West Prospect Road and South Overland Trail Intersection (Figure 2; Photos 5 – 8 in Photographic Log). The wetland was classified as a palustrine scrub- shrub (PSS) wetland, with over 30% tree and shrub cover (Cowardin et al., 1979). Soils in WL-1 and the adjacent uplands include both Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes and Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes soil types. These soil series are classified as well drained and are not considered hydric. Parent material includes Pleistocene-aged alluvium and/or eolian deposits, fine-textured alluvium derived from clayey shale, mixed eolian deposits, and mixed alluvium (USDA, 2019). Sampling Point 1 (SP-1) was excavated on the northeast side of the wetland (Figure 2; Photos 7 and 8 in Photographic Log). An upland pit (Sample Point 2; SP-2) was excavated approximately four feet northeast of SP-1, in the same drainage swale (Figure 2; Photo 9 in Photographic log). Vegetation, soil, and hydrology characteristics at SP-1 and SP-2 are described in the Wetland Delineation Data Forms (attached). The herbaceous stratum was dominated by smooth brome (UPL) and bentgrass (FAC or FACW) at SP-1; however, toward the center of the wetland, the herbaceous stratum was dominated only by bentgrass. Dominant shrubs and trees at SP-1 included coyote willow and plains cottonwood. The wetland area passed the Dominance Test for hydrophytic vegetation. The hydric soil indicator at SP-1 was Redox Depressions (F8), and the hydrology indicators were Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) and Geomorphic Position (D2). The wetland does not appear to have a connection with WUS or TNWs, and is therefore likely non-jurisdictional; however, only the USACE has the authority to make final determinations regarding jurisdiction, permitting, and mitigation. Conclusions and Recommendations Pinyon visited the project area to assess biological resources. Based on the habitat and resources present, Pinyon recommends the following: • Project-related activities will have no effect on federally threatened or endangered species. Therefore, no further consultation regarding this resource is required. • Grass, shrubs, and small trees within the project area may provide potential nest sites for migratory birds, and large trees in the project area and within 0.5-mile of the project area may provide potential nest sites for raptors. The nesting season for migratory birds generally occurs from April 1 – August 31, although raptors may nest as early as February. If construction activities occur during the nesting season, Pinyon recommends that the project conduct pre-construction nest surveys for migratory birds, including raptors. If nesting raptors are noted within 0.5-mile of the project area, then the recommendations outlined in Page 8 CPW Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors should be followed (CPW, 2008). If birds are noted within the project area, the nest(s) should be avoided until the birds have fledged. • No den sites for red foxes, coyotes, or badgers were noted within 300 feet of the project area. Therefore, no further action regarding these burrowing species are currently required. Per the City’s Resolution 2012- 001, additional den site surveys will be required within 30 days prior to the start of construction to verify these results. • During construction, the project should minimize the spread of noxious weeds. By following general best management practices (BMPs) outlined in the project plans, the potential for introducing and spreading noxious weeds in the project area will be reduced. Pinyon recommends that the plans include requirements for cleaning equipment and other BMPs specific to noxious weed management. • Approximately 0.285 acre (12,408 square feet) of non-wetland waters (Dixon Canal) and 0.017 acre (745 square feet) of wetlands (WL-1) were mapped within the project area. Final design has not yet been completed, and potential impacts are unknown at this time. If impacts to jurisdictional WUS are anticipated from project activities, impacts to WUS should be quantified and submitted to the USACE in a request for authorization under Section 404 of the CWA. Given the limited extent of WUS within the project area, it is likely any impacts would be minimal, and the project would covered under a USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12. Only the USACE has the authority to make final determinations regarding jurisdiction, permitting, and mitigation. Limitations The conclusions and recommendations offered in this report are based on the data obtained from a limited number of samples, within a prescribed project area as described in the text. Soil, hydrologic, vegetation, biological, and ecological conditions typically vary, even over short distances, by season, elevation, and meteorological conditions. Thus, the nature and extent of variations outside this biological investigation may not become evident except through further investigation. It is possible that ecological conditions may change from those observed, particularly over time. Ecological analysis has been performed for specific conditions during investigation, as described in the text. This study makes no attempt to assess ecological/biological conditions not searched for as described in the text. Conclusions stated herein refer only to the specific site at the time of the investigation. Attachments Figure 1 – Project Location Figure 2 – Biological Resources Photographic Log Wetland Delineation Data Forms References CDA, 2017. “Colorado Noxious Weed List”, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/noxious-weed- species. List effective March 31, 2017. CNHP, 2018. “CNHP Conservation Status Handbook (Tracking Lists)”, https://cnhp.colostate.edu/ourdata/trackinglist/. Updated in March 2018. Accessed April 2019. Page 9 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter V., F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31.Washington, D.C. CPW, 2008. “Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors,” Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Revised February 2008. CPW, 2018. “CPW All Species Activity Mapping Data,” Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Available at: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=190573c5aba643a0bc058e6f7f0510b7. Updated November 2018. Accessed April 2019. CPW, 2019. “Threatened & Endangered List,” Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Available at: http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx. Accessed April 2019. Environmental Laboratory, 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,” Technical Report Y-81-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Google Earth Pro, 2019. Google. Available at: https://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/. Accessed April 2019. USACE, 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0). Ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. USDA, 2019. “Web Soil Survey,” Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed April 2019. USFWS, 2010. Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/es/species/mammals/preble/CRITICAL%20HABITAT/12142010TempFR.pdf. Accessed April 2019. USFWS, 2018. “National Wetlands Inventory,” Wetlands Mapper. Updated June 2018. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed April 2019. USFWS, 2019. “IPaC- Information for Planning and Consultation System,” United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed April 2019. USGS, 1992. “7.5 Minute Topographic Map, Horsetooth Reservoir, Colorado,” United States Geological Survey. 1962, Revised 1994. Drawn By: PJW Figure: 1 PinyonBCA Project Number: 1/19-1260-01 Reviewed By: Site Location: Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, 6th Principal Meridian Date: 4/11/2019 Document Path: Z:\PROJECTS\2019\119126001 Golden Currant Waterline - Fort Collins\Figures\ArcMap\MXDs\Bio\Bio01_ProjectLocation.mxd I Project Area 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Golden FortWaterline Collins, Currant Colorado PROJECT LOCATION ^_ LOCATION PROJECT Legend Service Sources:cubed Layer Esri, HERE, Credits: Garmin, Copyright:USGS, © 2013 Intermap, National INCREMENT Geographic P, NRCan, Society, Esri i-Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Project Area b Notes: USGS 7.5' Topographic Map Horsetooth Reservoir, 1962 (Revised 1992) Drawn By: PJW Figure: 2 PinyonBCA Project Number: 1/19-1260-01 Reviewed By: Site Location: Sections 16 - 21, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, 6th Principal Meridian Date: 4/11/2019 Document Path: Z:\PROJECTS\2019\119126001 Golden Currant Waterline - Fort Collins\Figures\ArcMap\MXDs\Bio\Bio02_BiologicalResources.mxd I Project Area 300 Foot Buffer Half Mile Buffer b [Bird Nests Non-wetland Waters !( Sampling Point Wetlands 0 500 1,000 Feet Golden FortWaterline Collins, Currant Colorado BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ^_ LOCATION PROJECT Legend Service ©Community 2019 Layer Microsoft Credits: Corporation Sources: Esri, © 2019 HERE, DigitalGlobe Garmin, USGS, ©CNES Intermap, (2019) INCREMENT Distribution Airbus P, NRCan, DS © Esri 2019 Japan, HERE METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User l l Flow Direction Notes: Nest 1 was a potential raptor nest and Nest bird nest. 2 was Both a potential nests were non-inactive raptor migratory as of April 4, 2019. S. Overland Trail Golden Currant Waterline Biological Resources Memorandum Photographic Log Photo 1. Representative view of project area uplands. Area is dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Facing west. Photo 2. Representative view of upland swale within the project area. Swale is completely vegetated by smooth brome. Facing northeast. Golden Currant Waterline Biological Resources Memorandum Photographic Log Photo 3. Potential raptor Nest in a plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides) tree, 0.12 mile south of the project area in private property. Nest was inactive during the site visit. Facing south. Photo 4. Migratory bird nest in a plains cottonwood tree within the eastern portion of the project area. Nest was inactive during the site visit. Facing north. Golden Currant Waterline Biological Resources Memorandum Photographic Log Photo 5. View of Dixon Canal. Facing southwest. Photo 6. View of wetland (WL)-1 northwest of the intersection between West Prospect Road and South Overland Trail. Facing northwest. Golden Currant Waterline Biological Resources Memorandum Photographic Log Photo 7. View of Sampling Point (SP)-1 in WL-1. Photo 8. View of soil profile at SP- 1. Prominent redox is noted. Golden Currant Waterline Biological Resources Memorandum Photographic Log Photo 9. View of SP-2 in upland area next to WL-1. Facing east toward South Overland Trail. US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC�): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is �3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: SP-1 0-2 2-14 2-14 10YR 4/3 10YR 5/4 10YR 5/4 95 60 60 2.5 YR 4/3 2.5 YR 4/6 10YR 6/8 5 20 US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Great Plains Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC�): (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is �3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) High Plains Depressions (F16) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 & 73) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F, G, H) Depleted Matrix (F3) Reduced Vertic (F18) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Red Parent Material (TF2) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) High Plains Depressions (F16) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) (MLRA 72 & 73 of LRR H) wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) (where tilled) Drift Deposits (B3) (where not tilled) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: SP-2 0 - 14 10YR 4/4 98 2.5 YR 3/6 2 C M clay prominent redox present. none N/A X No hydric soil indicators noted. Hydric soil not present. X X X No wetland hydrology indicators noted. Wetland hydrology not present. X 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Golden Currant Waterline Fort Collins/Larimer 2019-04-04 CivilWorx, LLC/Fort Collins-Loveland Water District CO SP-2 PJW/BCA - Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 69West shoulder of drainage swale convex 3 Western Great Plains Range and Irrigated Region 40.568034° -105.134677° WGS84 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes none X NN N X N N N X X X X Sampling pit was excavated in the shoulder of a depression in a patch of Bromus inermis. 30 Ft radius Populus deltoides 10 10 YFAC 2 3 15 Ft radius 66 Salix exigua 30 30 Y FACW 00 30 60 10 30 00 100 500 140 590 4.214285714285714 5 Ft radius Bromus inermis 100 100 YUPL X All dominants are FACW and/or OBL. 15 Ft radius N/A 0 0 0 Passes Dominance Test for hydrophytic vegetation; hydrophytic vegetation present. X 140 = Total Veg Cover D5 - FAC Neutral Test for hydrology. Drop all FAC, cross examine all other dominants. If > 50% remaining are FACW to OBL, then YES to D5. 20 C C C M M M silty clay silty loam silty loam prominent redox present prominent redox present prominent redox present X none N/A X Soil profile was "splotchy" and exhibited multiple redox color types. Sampling pit was excavated in a closed depression subject to ponding, and soils exhibited 5 percent or more prominent redox concentrations; soils passed for Redox Depressions (F8). Hydric soil is present. X X X N/A X N/A X N/A Culvert empties into toeslope of drainage swale. Passes for Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) and Geomorphic Position (D2). Wetland hydrology is present. X 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Golden Currant Waterline Fort Collins/Larimer 2019-04-04 CivilWorx, LLC/Fort Collins-Loveland Water District CO SP-1 PJW/BCA - Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Section 17, Township 7 North, Range 69West toeslope of drainage swale none 0 Western Great Plains Range and Irrigated Region 40.568023° -105.134669° WGS84 Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes none X NN N X N N N X X X X Sampling point was excavated in a depression. The herb stratum was dominated by Bromus inermis and Agrostis sp. at the site of the sampling point; toward the center of the wetland, the herb stratum was dominated only by Agrostis sp. 30 Ft radius Populus deltoides 3 3 YFAC 3 4 15 Ft radius 75 Salix exigua 30 30 Y FACW 00 00 53 159 00 50 250 103 409 3.970873786407767 5 Ft radius Bromus inermis Agrostis sp.* 50 50 100 Y Y UPL FAC X All dominants are FACW and/or OBL. 15 Ft radius N/A 0 0 0 *Agrostis was not identified to the species level as no live individuals were noted. There is only one FACU Agrostis species for the Great Plains Region, and that species only occurs in alpine or wet meadow habitats. The other Agrostis species are either FAC or FACW. FAC was assumed instead of FACW, so that if the vegetation passed for hydrophytic, it would not be due to misidentification. X 133 = Total Veg Cover D5 - FAC Neutral Test for hydrology. Drop all FAC, cross examine all other dominants. If > 50% remaining are FACW to OBL, then YES to D5. plant Oenothera coloradensis Threatened Stream channel sites that are periodically disturbed, sub- irrigated alluvial soils along streams; open meadows on floodplains including riparian areas. Colonies are often found in low depressions or along bends in wide, active, meandering stream channels a short distance upslope of the actual channel. The plant requires early- to mid- succession riparian habitat. None. Suitable habitat does not occur in the project area. Wetland vegetation is only found within a roadside drainage swale; there are no open meadows or floodplains within the project area. North Park phacelia Phacelia formosula Endangered Steep-sided ravines and low sandy hills and bluffs on poorly vegetated exposures of the Coalmont Formation. None. There are no known occurrences of the species east of the Continental Divide (CNHP, 2018). Suitable habitat does not occur in the project area.