Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULBERRY CONNECTION - FDP200030 - - ECS REPORT OFFICE: 720-500-3710 FAX: 281-664-2491 1626 Wazee Street, Suite 2A Denver, CO 80202 spiritenv.com Ecological Characterization Study Poudre Valley Development Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 PREPARED FOR: Comunale Properties 1855 South Pearl St., Suite 20 | Denver, CO 80210 SPIRIT PROJECT: 19202.00F FOR SPIRIT ENVIRONMENTAL: Madeline Shields Margaret Tillman Tim DeMasters Project Consultant Project Consultant Senior Ecologist Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Table of Contents Table of Contents Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F ii 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................... 1–1 1.1 Location ............................................................................................ 1–1 1.2 Project Description ........................................................................... 1–1 2.0 Site Description ............................................................................. 2–1 3.0 Survey Methods ............................................................................ 3–1 3.1 Field Assessment ............................................................................. 3–1 3.2 Records Research/Database Search ............................................... 3–1 3.3 Mapping ............................................................................................ 3–1 4.0 Ecological Characterization Report Results .................................. 4–1 4.1 Wildlife Use of the Area .................................................................... 4–1 4.2 Wetlands .......................................................................................... 4–2 4.3 Prominent Views............................................................................... 4–4 4.4 Native Vegetation ............................................................................. 4–5 4.5 Bank, Shoreline or High-water Mark ................................................. 4–5 4.6 Sensitive or Specially Valued Species .............................................. 4–5 4.7 Special Habitat Features .................................................................. 4–6 4.8 Wildlife Movement Corridors ............................................................ 4–7 4.9 General Ecological Function ............................................................. 4–7 4.10 Issues with Timing of Development Activities ................................... 4–7 4.11 Natural Habitat or Features Requiring Mitigation .............................. 4–8 5.0 Conclusion .................................................................................... 5–1 5.1 Recommended Mitigation Measures ................................................ 5–1 6.0 Limitations ..................................................................................... 6–1 7.0 References .................................................................................... 7–1 8.0 Appendices ................................................................................... 8–1 Appendix 1 – Figures .................................................................................. 8–1 Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Table of Contents Table of Contents (continued) Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F iii Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ...................................................................................... 8–1 Figure 2 – Aerial Map ........................................................................................ 8–1 Figure 3 – Topo Map ......................................................................................... 8–1 Appendix 2 – Site Plans .............................................................................. 8–1 Appendix 3 – Site Photographs ................................................................... 8–1 Appendix 4 – IPaC, CPW, and Threatened & Endangered Species Report 8–1 Appendix 5 – Wetland Delineation Report .................................................. 8–1 Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Introduction Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 1–1 1.0 Introduction Spirit Environmental, LLC (“Spirit”) was contracted by Comunale Properties (“the client”) to complete an Ecological Characterization Study (“ECS”) of an agricultural property for a commercial development. Field efforts were performed on February 15, 2019. Article 3, Division 3.4, Section 3.41 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code requires an ECS to be completed “if any portion of the site is within five hundred (500) feet (“ft”) of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to the City an ecological characterization report prepared by a professional qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. At least ten (10) working days prior to the submittal of a project development plan application for all or any portion of a property, a comprehensive ECS of the entire property must be prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for review. The Director may waive any or all of the following elements of this requirement if the City already possesses adequate information required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), and the limits of development ("LOD").” 1.1 Location The site is located northwest (“NW”) of the intersection of NW Frontage Road and Redman Drive in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. See Appendix 1, Figure 1 for a vicinity map depicting the location of the project area, Figure 2 for an aerial overview map, Figure 3 for a topographic (“topo”) map, and Figure 4 for a flood zone map of the study area. 1.2 Project Description The client proposes to construct three (3) industrial buildings, totaling 248,000 square feet (“sq. ft.”) and associated parking lot on approximately 20 acres of land in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (“study area”). The site plans are included in Appendix 2. Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Site Description Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 2–1 2.0 Site Description The site consists of agricultural land (see attached site photographs and aerial map) with a riparian area along the western study area boundary. The study area contains marsh and wet meadow habitat on the City of Fort Collins Natural Habitat Map, triggering the need for completion of this ECS. The site gradually slopes to the southwest towards Cooper Slough, which is located approximately 360 ft west of the study area. The western portion of the study area sits within the 100-year floodplain for Cooper Slough. The elevation at the site ranges from 4,994 ft above mean sea level (“AMSL”) in the southwest corner to 4,955 ft AMSL along the northern study area boundary. The topographical low areas within the study area correspond with the riparian area identified during the field visit and through review of aerial photography. No aquatic resources are depicted on topo maps within the study area; however, Cooper Slough, a mapped intermittent stream, is located 360 ft to the west. This site is within the Hydrologic Unit Code (“HUC”) 10190007, Cache La Poudre – Colorado. This site is bound to the north by agricultural activities, to the east by NW Frontage Road and Interstate 25, to the south by commercial development, and to the west by Cooper Slough and additional agricultural activities. Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Survey Methods Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 3–1 3.0 Survey Methods Spirit completed a field visit on February 15, 2019 to conduct an ECS to support requirements set forth in Article 3, Division 3.4, Section 3.41 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. 3.1 Field Assessment Spirit conducted a field assessment for the ECS on February 15, 2019. The field assessment included a wetland and waterbody delineation and investigations into potential threatened and endangered species habitat, wildlife usage and movement, dominant vegetation communities, significant native and non-native vegetation, special habitat features, utilization by sensitive and specially valued species, prominent views, and ecological functions of the study area. 3.2 Records Research/Database Search Spirit completed a records search for the ECS between February 13, 2019 and February 27, 2019. Spirit reviewed the following databases: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) Information for Planning and Consultation (“IPaC”) tool, Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) National Flood Hazard Layer (“NFHL”) Viewer, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (“NWI”), Natural Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”) Web Soil Survey (“WSS”), and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (“CPW”). 3.3 Mapping Spirit collected location data using a Trimble GeoXT 2008 GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy. Location data was then transferred onto recent aerial photography basemaps provided through ArcMap 10.6.1. Distances and acreages included on maps have been calculated through the ArcMap program. Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Ecological Characterization Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–1 4.0 Ecological Characterization Results 4.1 Wildlife Use of the Area Based on the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Natural Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”) classification, the study area is located within the Western Great Plains Range and Irrigated Region (“LRR G”) of the Great Plains Region and is more specifically located in Major Land Resource Area (“MLRA”) 67B (Central High Plains, Southern Part). This area is characterized by an elevated, smooth to slightly irregular plain made of sediments deposited by rivers that drain from the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. Where herbaceous and shrub vegetation are dominant, short prairie grasses such as Needleandthread (Hesperostipa comata), Prairie Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), Blue Grama (Bouteloua gracilis), Galleta (Hilaria spp.), Threeawn (Aristida purpurea), Ring Muhly (Muhlenbergia torreyi), and Alkali Sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) are commonly encountered. Where trees are encountered, Cottonwood (Aigeiros) is common along streams and a mix of Juniper (Juniperus) and Pinyon (Pinus edulis) can be found in rocky soils. Although typical of the region, these species were not identified within the study area as the site is mostly agricultural. This ecosystem is home to various wildlife species including Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Antelope (Antilocapra americana), Jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia), Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), Canada Goose (Branta canadensis), Scaled Quail (Callipepla squamata), and Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura). Fish species in the area include Walleye (Sander vitreus), Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus). Wildlife observed during the field visit included songbirds including one (1) redwing blackbird, which was observed in the wetlands. Additionally, raptors were observed flying within the vicinity of the study area. Evidence of wildlife included goose feces, located in the agricultural field and near a drainage on the northern portion of the study area, as well as a possible mammal bedding area in the wetlands. No prairie dog burrows were observed within the study area. Additionally, no individual migratory bird nests or rookeries were observed within the study area or adjacent to the study area during the field assessment. Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Ecological Characterization Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–2 The study area is located along Interstate-25, a frontage road, and a handful of commercial buildings. Human activity levels surrounding the proposed project are high due to agricultural practices, road use, and new developments. Wildlife species utilizing this site are likely species with a high tolerance for these disturbances. Although no raptor nests were identified within the study area or on adjacent properties, a large tree located along the southern study area boundary provides potential nesting habitat for these birds. Spirit recommends that a professional biologist conduct raptor nest surveys be completed within raptor nesting season. Spirit also recommends that a migratory nesting bird survey be completed at a minimum of no more than seven (7) days prior to construction. The nesting season generally occurs from April 1 to August 31 for most passerines, and as early as February 15 for raptors. If active nests are identified within the study area, Spirit recommends that CPW- specified buffer zones be utilized to minimize disturbance until the nests have fledged. A list of the migratory birds which could potentially occur within the project area is enclosed in Appendix 4. 4.2 Wetlands Spirit completed a wetland delineation for the study area on February 15, 2019 (Appendix 5). Spirit utilized the routine method described in the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (“1987 Manual”) and the USACE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0) (“2010 Regional Supplement”). The Routine Determination Method examines three (3) parameters: vegetation, hydrology, and soils, to determine if wetlands exist in a given area. By definition, wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are regulated as Waters of the United States (“WOTUS”) by the USACE. One (1) concrete irrigation channel, one (1) erosional rill and two (2) palustrine emergent (“PEM”) wetlands (Wetland 1 and Wetland 2) were identified within the study area. Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Ecological Characterization Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–3 Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 are palustrine emergent wetlands separated by an earthen berm that may see occasional flooding due to their location within the floodplain. Wetland 1 receives water inputs from outside of the study area to the north as the wetland feature continues offsite along a topo depression, as well as from a concrete agricultural irrigation channel along the northern study area boundary. Wetland 2 receives water inputs from Wetland 1 at the northern-most point where the two (2) wetlands are adjacent. These wetland features may also share hydrology across lower points within the earthen berm during extreme flooding events. Wetland 2 then drains back into Wetland 1 on its southern end, where Wetland 1 continues offsite before joining Cooper Slough 300 ft west of the study area. Wetland 1 is topographically lower than Wetland 2; however, both features are depressions underlain by clay soils, creating ideal conditions for prolonged saturation and ponding. The area west of Wetland 2 contains a berm associated with a fenceline for the nearby agricultural activities. The combination of berms on both the west and east side of Wetland 2 help create the topo basin in which water accumulates. The state of Colorado currently utilizes guidance issued following the Supreme Court ruling of the Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (“Rapanos Guidance”) for determining what WOTUS are jurisdictional. The Rapanos Guidance states that wetlands which abut relatively permanent waters (“RPW”) that are non-navigable tributaries of traditionally navigable waterways (“TNWs”) will be considered jurisdictional by the USACE. Through a review of aerial imagery and observations made during the delineation, Wetlands 1 and 2 continue offsite where they abut Cooper Slough, a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary. Cooper Slough flows south where it joins the Lake Canal, which empties into the Windsor Reservoir. Windsor Reservoir is considered a TNW as it is currently being used for commercial navigation, including commercial water recreation, and may be susceptible to future use in interstate or foreign commerce including commercial water recreation. Given that Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 abut Cooper Slough (an RPW), which is a tributary to Lake Canal that empties into Windsor Reservoir (a TNW), it is likely the USACE will assume jurisdiction over these features. The concrete irrigation channel is a man-made agricultural water conveyance that wraps around the property north of the study area. Water flow is controlled by a pump at the channels northern end where it then flows east along a concrete channel to NW Frontage Rd, then south along NW Frontage Rd, then heads west along the northern study area boundary before draining into Wetland 1. Given the agricultural nature of this feature, along with the manipulated and irregular Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Ecological Characterization Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–4 flow duration and that it was not excavated from a natural feature, this feature is potentially non- jurisdictional to the USACE. Additionally, the USACE generally does not assume jurisdiction over low-flow, short duration erosional features such as the erosional rill connecting the irrigation channel with Wetland 1. As such, the USACE will likely not assume jurisdiction over this feature. Spirit’s professional opinions offered in this report and within the wetland delineation are based on best professional judgement, but it should be noted that only the USACE may make a final determination of the location of wetland and waterbody boundaries and their jurisdiction. To obtain an official wetland determination from the USACE, the wetland delineation report should be submitted to the Omaha District Office of the USACE. 4.3 Prominent Views The visual setting is currently comprised of an approximate 20-acre tract of undeveloped agricultural land. Elevation on the study area ranges from 4,944 to 4,955 ft above sea level. Based on the topo maps and site reconnaissance, the proposed project is mostly flat with a general topo gradient to the southwest toward Cooper Slough (Appendix 1, Figure 3). Anticipated viewer groups include nearby residents/employees near the study area and travelers on nearby roads including Interstate 25, the northeast (“NE”) Frontage Road, the NW Frontage Road, and East Vine Drive. Surrounding properties largely consist of agricultural and industrial land. The study area is currently zoned as industrial. Surrounding properties include industrial land to the north and east, which is located within the City of Fort Collins. The property to the west is NW Frontage Road, followed by Interstate 25, followed by NE Frontage Road, followed by industrial land within the City of Fort Collins. The study area is bound to the south by Redman Drive followed by a parcel that falls within the Larimer County precinct and is zoned as industrial land. Due to similar use of surrounding properties (including the industrial development south of the study area), the proposed industrial development is not anticipated to significantly alter the vividness, intactness, and unity of the viewshed. There are no known visually sensitive areas (e.g., designated wilderness area, parks, recreation areas, historic sites, wild/scenic rivers) or formally classified lands within the vicinity of the study area. In sum, significant impacts to visual effects of the development are anticipated to be minimal. The proposed project will not Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Ecological Characterization Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–5 significantly impact visual resources. There are no known visually sensitive areas (i.e., designated wilderness area, parks, recreation areas, historic sites, wild/scenic rivers), or formally classified lands within the vicinity of the study area. Photographs showing the surrounding land use are included in Appendix 3 – Site Photographs. 4.4 Native Vegetation The majority of the study area is agricultural in nature and exhibits a separate vegetative community than that observed along the western boundary. The currently fallow agricultural field was previously planted with a cultivated wheat species (Triticum spp.); however, weedy herbaceous plants have moved into the field including Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and Yellow Foxtail (Setaria pumila). Representative dominant taxa observed included Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerate), Wheat (Triticum aestivuss), Showy Milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), Baltic Rush (Juncus balticus), Common Threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens), and Broadleaf Cattail (Typha latifolia). Other vegetation found within the study area includes Bromes (Bromus spp.), Curly Dock (Rumex crispus), and Wild Licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota). Additionally, one (1) non-native tree, the Accolade Elm, was identified in the study area. Of the vegetation found in the study area, Saltgrass, Showy Milkweed, Baltic Rush, Common Threesquare, Broadleaf Cattail, and Wild Licorice are native to Colorado. 4.5 Bank, Shoreline, or High-water Mark Due to the lack of linear waterbody features in the study area, no bank, shoreline, or ordinary high-water mark was observed. The nearest habitat containing these features is Cooper Slough, which is approximately 360 ft west of the study area. 4.6 Sensitive or Specially Valued Species According to the USFWS IPaC report for the site, 14 species federally-listed as threatened or endangered could occur in the project area. A desktop review coupled with habitat observed onsite determined that none of these 14 federally-listed species have the potential to occur in or Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Ecological Characterization Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–6 near the project area. No federally-listed critical habitat (as designated by the Endangered Species Act) was found within or immediately surrounding the project area. Detailed information about these resources can be found in the attached IPaC report (see Appendix 4). Appendix 4 presents the federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species that could occur in Larimer County, Colorado. The status and habitat requirements for each of the species are included in Appendix 4 to help determine whether the proposed project could potentially affect or impact the listed species. According to the CPW list of state threatened and endangered species, no species have the potential to occur onsite. Based on the IPaC review, nine (9) birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) and Bald and Golden Eagle Act (“BGEPA”) were determined to have potential to occur in the project area (see Appendix 4). If proposed clearing activities are to occur during the breeding and nesting season for migratory birds, (generally April 1 – August 31 for most passerines, extending to March 15 – October 31 for burrowing owls, and as early as January for some raptors), the client may want to follow the guidance set forth in the MBTA. The most recent guidance per the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) memo 37050 (DOI M-37050) states (in summary) that the MBTA does not prohibit incidental take related to legal activities not intended for the sole purpose of taking birds (DOI, 2017). However, it should be noted that DOI M-37050 likely does not apply to the BGEPA, and state and local laws can sometimes be more specific than federal. 4.7 Special Habitat Features No aquatic insects were observed during the study area evaluation; however, due to the presence of wetland features within the study area there is the potential for higher than average aquatic and terrestrial aquatic insect diversity. Additionally, the site visit was completed during winter and was not conducive to obtaining accurate observations of wildflower communities. However, the western wetland is dominated by milkweed, a species commonly used by pollinators including butterflies, specifically the western monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). Field staff concluded Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Ecological Characterization Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–7 that the western wetland area may serve as an area for rare, migrant, or resident butterflies. Additional evidence of previous pollinator site use includes a paper nest of an unidentified Hymenoptera species on the fence along the northern study area boundary. The current site development plans depict avoidance of the wetland areas on the west side of the study area; therefore, Spirit anticipates no impacts to these communities. 4.8 Wildlife Movement Corridors Regarding wild game, a search of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Atlas (“CPWA”) suggests that the study area falls outside of the migration ranges for game such as big horn sheep, elk, moose, mountain goat, pronghorn, turkey, and black bear. The study area does not fall within the winter or summer range for the mule deer but is included in the overall range for this species. The study area is in both the winter range and the overall range for the white-tailed deer (CPWA, 2019). It is likely that wetlands located on the western portion of the site serve as a migration corridor. Since the current development plans provide a buffer around the wetlands, impacts to the corridor are not anticipated. 4.9 General Ecological Function The study area primarily functions as agricultural land, which is currently fallow. Non-native plants have moved into the agricultural field. The wetlands area on the western portion of the site functions in multiple ways, primarily by increasing water quality of downgradient water features, including Cooper Slough, through biochemical processes and sediment trapping. Additionally, the dense vegetative cover of the wetland area provides habitat for animals and plants. 4.10 Issues with Timing of Development Activities Although no migratory bird or raptor nests were observed within the study area, caution should be exercised prior to clearing and grading activities. If possible, construction should be completed outside of the nesting season to avoid impacts to ground nesting migratory birds. If construction falls within the nesting season for migratory birds, a nest survey may be completed prior to construction activities to avoid impacts to nesting species. However, the most recent guidance Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Ecological Characterization Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–8 from the DOI indicates that incidental take is not prohibited as long as the intention of the take is solely for the purpose of the taking of birds. 4.11 Natural Habitat or Features Requiring Mitigation Client site plans indicate avoidance of wetland features identified onsite. If site plans change and placement of fill or excavation within the wetland features is unavoidable then permitting and/or mitigation through the USACE may be required. Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Conclusion Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 5–1 5.0 Conclusion 5.1 Recommended Mitigation Measures Spirit recommends the following: • According to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, the study area is located near wetlands greater than one third of an acre; however, as the study area is not located near open water or grass land and is narrow and linear in dimension, Spirit recommends a 100- foot buffer as this area would not see a significant use by waterfowl/and or shorebirds. • The client should confirm jurisdictional status to aquatic features identified onsite through the wetland delineation prior to impacting any identified features. • The client should follow guidelines provided by the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code in reference to landscaping. Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Limitations Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 6–1 6.0 Limitations The findings of this report are based on the project location, project type, and information provided by the client. Should the project location, project type, and/or construction diagrams be altered, please contact our office to evaluate whether additional consultation is required. The findings and opinions presented are relative to the dates of our site work and should not be relied on to represent conditions at any later date. The opinions included herein are based on information obtained during this study and our experience. If additional information becomes available which might impact our environmental findings, we request the opportunity to review the information, reassess the potential concerns, and modify our opinions, as necessary. Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties References Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 7–1 7.0 References City of Fort Collins. Natural Areas. Internet Website: https://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/finder. Accessed February 2019. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm (Version 04DEC1998). Colorado Plant Database. Internet Website: https://coloradoplants.jeffco.us/PlantSearch. Accessed February 2019. CPW Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. Internet Website: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/LandWater/WetlandsProgram/PrioritySpecies/Factsheet- and-Habitat-Scorecard_PreblesMeadowJumpingMouse.pdf. Accessed February 2019. CPW Threatened and Endangered List. 2019. Internet Website: http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2011. FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search by Address for Will County. Available online at http://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=will%20county%2C%20illinois#searchresults anchor. Accessed February 2019 Google Inc. (2009). Google Earth (Version 5.1.3533.1731) [Software]. Accessed February 2019. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Lists of Hydric Soils. National List; all states. United States Department of Agriculture. National Resource Conservation Service. Available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. Accessed February 2019. Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties References Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 7–2 Munsell® Soil Color Charts. 2009. GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Available online at www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS?nrcs142p2-050898.pdf. Accessed February 2019. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed February 2019. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. USFWS. 2019. Colorado Butterfly Plant. Internet Website https://www.fws.gov/mountain- prairie/es/coloradoButterflyPlant.php USFWS. 2019. IPaC Trust Resource Report. Internet Website: https://ecos.fwa.gov/ipac/. USFWS. 2019. Prairie Fringed Orchids Fact Sheet. Internet Website: https://www.fws.gov/MIDWEST/Endangered/plants/prairief.html USFWS. 2019. Ute Ladies’-Tresses Fact Sheet. Internet Website: https://www.fws.gov/utahfieldoffice/Documents/Plants/Handouts/Ute%20Ladies'- tresses%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Regulatory Guidance Letter: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. Available online http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/rg105- 05.pdf. Accessed February 2019. Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties References Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 7–3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. USFWS and NMFS 1998 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 315 pp. Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Appendices Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 8–1 8.0 Appendices 1. Figures a) Figure 1 – Vicinity Map b) Figure 2 – Aerial Map c) Figure 3 – Topo Map d) Figure 4 – Floodplain Map 2. Site Plans 3. Site Photographs 4. IPaC, CPW, and Threatened & Endangered Species Report 5. Wetland Delineation Report Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Appendices Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F Appendix 1 Figures Sources: Es ri, HERE, G armin, USGS, I ntermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Jap an, METI, EsriChina (Ho ng Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailan d), NGCC, © O penStre etMap con tributo rs, and the GISUser Community FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARAC TERIZATIONVICINITY MAPCOMUNALE PROPERTIESLARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Note: This is not anofficial land survey. Figu re No .: 1 ± Drawn By: MSh iel ds 1626 Wazee St. Suit e 2ADenver, CO 80 202 Site Visit Da te: 2 /15/1 9 0 0.6 1.20.3 Mi les FORT COLLINS E COLOGICA L CHA RACTERIZATION40.592485°, -105.001792°I-25Larime r Cou nty Colo rad o Colorado an d So uthern Railroad CacheLaPoudreRiver CacheLaPoudreReservoirInlet Larimerand Weld Canal Mulberry St. Running Deer Natural Area Cottonwood HollowNatural Area Riverben d Pon dsNatural AreaCattail ChorusNatural Area Kingfisher PointNatural Area NixNatural Area Willia msNatural AreaSpringerNatural Area Legacy Park Lee Martin ez Park Project No.: 19 202.00F Source: Esri, DigitalGlo be, GeoEye, Earthstar G eographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USD A, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARAC TERIZATIONAERIAL OVERVIEW MAPCOMUNALE PROPERTIESLARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Note: This is not anofficial land survey. Figu re No .: 2 ± Drawn By: MSh iel ds 1626 Wazee St. Suit e 2ADenver, CO 80 202 Site Visit Da te: 2 /15/1 9 0 150 30075Feet FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICA L CHA RACTERIZATION40.592485°, -105.001792°NW Frontage RoadI-25Redman Drive Larime r Cou nty Colo rad o Project No.: 19 202.00F Copyrigh t:© 201 3 National Ge ographic Society, i-cube d FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARAC TERIZATIONTOPOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW MAPCOMUNALE PROPERTIESLARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Note: This is not anofficial land survey. Figu re No .: 3 ± Drawn By: MSh iel ds 1626 Wazee St. Suit e 2ADenver, CO 80 202 Site Visit Da te: 2 /15/1 9 0 600 1,200300Feet FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICA L CHA RACTERIZATION40.592485°, -105.001792°NW Frontage RoadI-25Larime r Cou nty Colo rad o Cooper Slou g h Larimer and Weld Can al Project No.: 19 202.00F Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATIONFEMA FLOOD MAPCOMUNALE PROPERTIESLARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Note: This is not anofficial land survey. Figure No.: 4 ± Drawn By: MShields 1626 Wazee St. Suite 2ADenver, CO 80202 Site Visit Date: 2/15/19 0 150 30075Feet FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION40.592485°, -105.001792°NW Frontage RoadI-25Redman Drive Legend Delineation Boundary Flood Zone 100-Year Flood Zone Area of Mnimial FloodHazard 100-Year Flood Zone Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Project No.: 19202.00F Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Appendices Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F Appendix 2 Site Plans Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Appendices Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F Appendix 3 Site Photographs Poudre Valley Development Site Visit Photographs Photo 1: Overview of agricultural habitat within the study area. Photo 2: Overview of wetland habitats within the study area. Photo 3: View of Wetland 1 habitat dominated by Typha spp. Photo 4: View of Wetland 2 habitat dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Photo 5: View of Hymenoptera species nest along northern study area boundary. Photo 6: View of potential mammal bedding area within Wetland 1. Spirit Environmental, LLC 19202.00F February 15, 2019 1 Poudre Valley Development Site Visit Photographs Photo 7: View of transition between upland and wetland habitats. Photo 8: View of single tree in study area that may provide raptor nesting habitat. Photo 9: View of commerical development along the southern boundary of the study area. Photo 10: View of Interstate-25 and frontage road from the eastern study area boundary. Photo 11: View of the Rocky Mountain foothills from the western study area boundary. Photo 12: View from E Vine Dr. looking south towards the study area. Spirit Environmental, LLC 19202.00F February 15, 2019 2 Poudre Valley Development Site Visit Photographs Photo 13: View from E Vine Dr. east of Interstate 25 looking southwest towards the study area. Photo 14: View of houses north of E Vine Dr. north of the study area. Photo 15: View of housing from east of Interstate 25 southeast of the study area. #N/A #N/A #N/A Spirit Environmental, LLC 19202.00F February 15, 2019 3 Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Appendices Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F Appendix 4 IPaC, CPW and Threatened and Endangered Species Report Couesius plumbeus Lake chub - SE Occur in small, confined habitat in places of permanent spring flow, usually at the headwaters of small streams (Stasiak 2006). No No impact Xyrauchen texanus Razorback sucker E SE Deep and clear turbid waters of large rivers and some reservoirs with mud, sand, and gravel (CPW n.d.-e). No No impact Hybognathus placitus Plains minnow - SE Native to the Arkansas, Republican and South Platte basins in Colorado (CPW 2011). Its range includes the Missouri River and western Mississippi River systems from Montana south to Texas. A few specimens were collected on the eastern plains in the South Platte in the early 1980's and mid-1990's. It has not been seen in the Arkansas River since the 1960's (CPW 2011). No No impact Catostomus plebeius Rio Grande sucker - SE Obligate riverine species; however, little information is available regarding the habitat requirements of the Rio Grande sucker prior to its recent decline in distribution and abundance (Rees and Miller 2005). No No impact Phoxinus erythrogaster Southern redbelly dace - SE Occupy stream channels and off- channel wetlands (CPW n.d.-k). In Colorado southern redbelly dace are known in five drainages: Upper Arkansas River, Fountain Creek, Chico Creek, Apishapa River, and Big Sandy Creek CPW. n.d.-k.) No No impact Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth minnow - SE Inhabits shallow riffles with sand/gravel substrate, but utilizes deeper pools during low flow periods (CPW 2011). Suckermouth minnows are native to the eastern plains of Colorado in the South Platte, Arkansas, and Arikaree Rivers. Its range extends to most of the Mississippi River basin from Ohio west to Wyoming, and south to Louisiana and Texas (CPW 2011) No No impact Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon FE - Inhabits the bottom of large, silty rivers exhibiting a diversity of depths and velocities formed by braided channels, sand bars, sand flats, and gravel bars. No No effect AmphibiansBufo boreas boreas Boreal Toad - SE Vicinity of mountain lakes, ponds, meadows, and wetlands in subalpine forest (for example, spruce, fir, lodgepole pine, aspen). Adults often feed in meadows and forest openings near water but sometimes in drier forest habitats (CPW n.d-f) No No impact Charadrius melodus circumcinctus Piping plover E ST Platte River Species. If the project will involve water-related activities, then the species in Nebraska may be affected by water-related activities/use. No No effect Grus americana (Whooping crane)Whooping crane E SE Platte River Species. If the project will involve water-related activities, then the species in Nebraska may be affected by water-related activities/use. No No effect Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl - ST Open, dry, treeless areas on plains, prairies, and deserts (McDonald et al. 2004). These areas are also occupied by burrowing mammals and other animals that provide nest burrows but have a close association with prairie dogs (McDonald et al. 2004). No No impact Sterna antillarum Least tern E SE Platte River Species. If the project will involve water-related activities, then the species in Nebraska may be affected by water-related activities/use. No If the project will involve water- related activities, then the species in Nebraska may be affected by water- related No FishesNo impact Occupy stream channels and off- channel wetlands (CPW n.d.-k). In Colorado, northern redbelly dace are currently known only in the West Plum Creek drainage, south of Chatfield Reservoir (CPW n.d.-k) Phoxinus eos - Northern redbelly dace BirdsSE Strix occidentalis Mexican spotted owl T ST Occurs in forested canyon habitats No No impact Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesii Plains sharp-tailed grouse - SE Prefers subclimax brush-grasslands with scrub oak thickets and grassy glades (NRCS 2007). No No impact Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern willow flycatcher ESE Requires dense riparian habitats (cottonwood/willow and tamarisk vegetation) with microclimatic conditions dictated by the local surroundings (USFWS n.d.-b). No No impact Tympanuchus pallidicinctus Lesser prairie chicken T ST Climax grasslands of the eastern Great Plains dominated by big and little bluestem, indiangrass, and switchgrass (Snyder 1992). No No effect Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Colorado Butterfly Plant FT - This species is found in southeastern Wyoming, northcentral Colorado, and extreme western Nebraska. It is found on the high plains in wetlands along meandering stream channels. In, undisturbed sites, it is found among native grasses. It prefers open habitat, not overgrown by other vegetation. No No effect Phacelia formosula North Park Phacelia FT - This species is found only in northern Colorado in the North Park of Jackson County. It is found at elevations of between 8,000 and 8,300 feet. It is limited to eroded soils outcrops with the barren exposures of the Coalmont Formation, which is a coal-bearing substrate. No No effect Spiranthes diluvialis Ute Ladies'-tresses T - This species is found in stable wetlands and seepy areas with old landscape features within the historical floodplains of major rivers or in wetland and seepy areas near freshwater lakes or springs. This plant occurs along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, high flow channels, and moist to wet meadows along perennial steams. This plant is found in sandy and stony soils. No No effect Platanthera praeclara Western Prairie Fringed Orchid T- Occurs in mesic to wet unplowed tall grass prairies and meadows. The species has also been found in old fields and roadside ditches. No No effect T= Threatened E=Endangered C = Candidate Arsapnia arapahoe Arapahoe Snowfly FC - This species are typically found in cold, clean, well-oxygenated streams and rivers. It has only been found in Elkhorn Creek and Young Gulch, which are two small tributaries of the Cache La Poudre River in the Front Range of Colorado. No No effect InsectsPlants United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Colorado Ecological Services Field Office Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25486 Denver, CO 80225-0486 Phone: (303) 236-4773 Fax: (303) 236-4005 http://www.fws.gov/coloradoES http://www.fws.gov/platteriver In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 06E24000-2019-SLI-0476 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489 Project Name: Poudre Valley Development Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered February 18, 2019 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   2    species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http:// www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/ comtow.html. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): ▪Official Species List ▪USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries ▪Migratory Birds ▪Wetlands 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   3    02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   1    Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Colorado Ecological Services Field Office Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25486 Denver, CO 80225-0486 (303) 236-4773 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   2    Project Summary Consultation Code:06E24000-2019-SLI-0476 Event Code:06E24000-2019-E-01489 Project Name:Poudre Valley Development Project Type:DEVELOPMENT Project Description:Development of three industrial buildings. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/40.59176918503587N105.00450666436618W Counties:Larimer, CO 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   3    Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 14 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 5 of these species should be considered only under certain conditions. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1.NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Mammals NAME STATUS Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Population: Wherever Found in Contiguous U.S. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3652 Threatened North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5123 Proposed Threatened Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4090 Threatened 1 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   4    Birds NAME STATUS Least Tern Sterna antillarum Population: interior pop. No critical habitat has been designated for this species. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ▪Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8505 Endangered Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8196 Threatened Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Population: [Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations] - Wherever found, except those areas where listed as endangered. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ▪Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039 Threatened Whooping Crane Grus americana Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ▪Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758 Endangered Fishes NAME STATUS Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2775 Threatened Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ▪Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7162 Endangered 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   5    Insects NAME STATUS Arapahoe Snowfly Arsapnia arapahoe No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9141 Candidate Flowering Plants NAME STATUS Colorado Butterfly Plant Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6110 Threatened North Park Phacelia Phacelia formosula No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/123 Endangered Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159 Threatened Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara No critical habitat has been designated for this species. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ▪Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte and Laramie River Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1669 Threatened Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   1    USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lands And Fish Hatcheries Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   1    Migratory Birds Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. 1.The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2.The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 3.50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Oct 15 to Jul 31 Cassin's Sparrow Aimophila cassinii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9512 Breeds Aug 1 to Oct 10 1 2 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   2    NAME BREEDING SEASON Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 1 to Aug 10 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds May 10 to Aug 15 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Breeds elsewhere Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408 Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30 Willet Tringa semipalmata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 5 Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3482 Breeds May 20 to Aug 31 Probability Of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ “Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report” before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   3    below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1.The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2.To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3.The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   4    SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Cassin's Sparrow BCC - BCR Chestnut-collared Longspur BCC Rangewide (CON) Golden Eagle BCC - BCR Lark Bunting BCC - BCR Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) Lewis's Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Willet BCC Rangewide (CON) Willow Flycatcher BCC - BCR Additional information can be found using the following links: ▪Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php ▪Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/ management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php ▪Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/ management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf Migratory Birds FAQ Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   5    The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the E-bird Explore Data Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets . Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1."BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2."BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   6    3."Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ “What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location”. Please be aware this report provides the “probability of presence” of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the “no data” indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ “Tell 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   7    me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds” at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. 02/18/2019 Event Code: 06E24000-2019-E-01489   1    Wetlands Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND ▪PEM1A ▪PEM1C 2/18/2019 Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered List https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx 1/5 COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS* AMPHIBIANS Boreal Toad Bufo boreas boreas SE Couch's Spadefoot Scaphiopus couchii SC Great Plains Narrowmouth Toad Gastrophryne olivacea SC Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans SC Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens SC Plains Leopard Frog Rana blairi SC Wood Frog Rana sylvatica SC BIRDS American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum SC Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus SC Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia ST Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus SC Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis SC Greater Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus SC Threatened and Endangered List 2/18/2019 Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered List https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx 2/5 Greater Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis tabida SC Gunnison Sage-Grouse Centrocercus minimus FT, SC Least Tern Sterna antillarum FE, SE Lesser Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ST Long-Billed Curlew Numenius americanus SC Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida FT, ST Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus SC Plains Sharp-Tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesii SE Piping Plover Charadrius melodus circumcinctus FT, ST Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, SE Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus SC Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus SC Whooping Crane Grus americana FE, SE FISH Arkansas Darter Etheostoma cragini ST Bonytail Gila elegans FE, SE Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni ST Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius FE, ST Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus SC Colorado Roundtail Chub Gila robusta SC Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus ST Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilus SC 2/18/2019 Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered List https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx 3/5 Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias FT, ST Humpback Chub Gila cypha FE, ST Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile SC Lake Chub Couesius plumbeus SE Mountain Sucker Catostomus playtrhynchus SC Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos SE Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus SE Plains Orangethroat Darter Etheostoma spectabile SC Rio Grande Chub Gila pandora SC Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis SC Rio Grande Sucker Catostomus plebeius SE Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus FE, SE Southern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus erythrogaster SE Stonecat Noturus flavus SC Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis SE MAMMALS Black-Footed Ferret Mustela nigripes FE, SE Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus SC Botta's Pocket Gopher Thomomy bottae rubidus SC Gray Wolf Canis lupus FE, SE Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos FT, SE Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis SE 2/18/2019 Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered List https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx 4/5 Lynx Lynx canadensis FT, SE Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides macrotis SC Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei FT, ST River Otter Lontra canadensis ST Swift fox Vulpes velox SC Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens SC Wolverine Gulo gulo SE REPTILES Triploid Checkered Whiptail Cnemidophorus neotesselatus SC Midget Faded Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis concolor SC Longnose Leopard Lizard Gambelia wislizenii SC Yellow Mud Turtle Kinosternon flavescens SC Common King Snake Lampropeltis getula SC Texas Blind Snake Leptotyphlops dulcis SC Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum SC Roundtail Horned Lizard Phrynosoma modestum SC Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus SC Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis SC MOLLUSKS Rocky Mountain Capshell Acroloxus coloradensis SC Cylindrical Papershell Anodontoides ferussacianus SC 2/18/2019 Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered List https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx 5/5 *Status Codes FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened SC = State Special Concern (not a statutory category) Resources Species Profiles Colorado's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) The approved State Wildlife A ction Plan  identifies priority species & habitats that need conservation efforts in the state, & potential conservation actions that can address threats these species & habitats face.  >> Read More Poudre Valley Development – Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Ecological Characterization Study Comunale Properties Appendices Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F Appendix 5 Wetland Delineation Report OFFICE: 720-500-3710 FAX: 281-664-2491 1626 Wazee Street, Suite 2A Denver, Colorado 80202 spiritenv.com Wetland Delineation Report Poudre Valley Development Larimer County, Colorado March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 PREPARED FOR: Comunale Properties 1855 South Pearl St., Suite 20 | Denver, CO 80210 SPIRIT PROJECT: 19202.00F PREPARED BY SPIRIT ENVIRONMENTAL: Madeline Shields Tim DeMasters Project Consultant Senior Ecologist Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Table of Contents Table of Contents Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F ii 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................... 1–1 2.0 Project Overview ........................................................................... 2–1 3.0 Site Description ............................................................................. 3–1 4.0 Methods ........................................................................................ 4–1 4.1 Map and Database Review .............................................................. 4–1 4.1.1 USGS Topo Maps .................................................................................. 4–1 4.1.2 USFWS NWI Data ................................................................................. 4–1 4.1.3 NRCS Soil Survey Data ......................................................................... 4–1 4.1.4 Aerial Photography ................................................................................ 4–1 4.1.5 FEMA FIRM ........................................................................................... 4–2 4.1.6 Climatological Observations .................................................................. 4–2 4.2 Wetland Delineation ......................................................................... 4–2 4.2.1 Hydrology............................................................................................... 4–3 4.2.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................. 4–3 4.2.3 Soils ....................................................................................................... 4–4 4.3 Waterbody Survey ............................................................................ 4–4 5.0 Results .......................................................................................... 5–1 5.1 Map and Database Review .............................................................. 5–1 5.1.1 USGS Topo Maps .................................................................................. 5–1 5.1.2 USFWS NWI Data ................................................................................. 5–1 5.1.3 NRCS Soil Survey Data ......................................................................... 5–1 5.1.4 Aerial Photography ................................................................................ 5–2 5.1.5 FEMA FIRM ........................................................................................... 5–2 5.1.6 Climatological Observations .................................................................. 5–2 5.2 Wetland Delineation ......................................................................... 5–3 5.2.1 Hydrology............................................................................................... 5–4 5.2.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................. 5–4 Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Table of Contents Table of Contents (continued) Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F iii 5.2.3 Soils ....................................................................................................... 5–5 5.3 Waterbody Survey ............................................................................ 5–6 6.0 Conclusion .................................................................................... 6–1 7.0 References .................................................................................... 7–1 8.0 Attachments .................................................................................. 8–1 Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties List of Tables List of Tables Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F Table 5-1 NRCS Soils Data ................................................................... 5–2 Table 5-2 Upland Dominant Plant Species ............................................ 5–4 Table 5-3 Wetland Dominant Plant Species .......................................... 5–5 Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties List of Charts List of Charts Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F Chart 5-1 Rainfall Trends for Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado ... 5–3 Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Introduction Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 1–1 1.0 Introduction Spirit Environmental, LLC (“Spirit”) was subcontracted by Comunale Properties (“Comunale”) to conduct a wetland and waterbody delineation for a proposed land development located on agricultural property approximately 20 acres in size in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (“study area”). This report describes the methodology and results of the delineation, which was conducted on February 15, 2019. The delineation was performed to evaluate the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and waterbodies and to identify their boundaries within the proposed right-of-way (“ROW”). It is anticipated that this wetland delineation report will be used for support of the jurisdictional determination process for on-site aquatic resources. If it is determined that jurisdictional resources will be impacted, this report will also support applications for regulatory permits that may be required from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) for the proposed construction activities. As required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), wetlands were delineated using the routine method described in the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (“1987 Manual”) and the USACE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0) (“2010 Regional Supplement”). Wetland types and boundaries were determined through initial map review, followed by fieldwork involving the examination of three (3) parameters: vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Delineation criteria and indicators for each of these parameters are outlined in the 1987 Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement. The 2010 Regional Supplement presents wetland indicators, delineation guidance, and other information that is specific to the Great Plains Region. Wetlands and waterbodies were classified according to the Cowardin Classification System used for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (“USFWS”) National Wetlands Inventory (“NWI”). This document contains three (3) attachments. Attachment 1 contains maps of the study area; Attachment 2 contains the Wetland Determination Data Forms, which document the three (3) criteria for wetlands; and Attachment 3 contains site photographs taken during the site visit. Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Project Overview Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 2–1 2.0 Project Overview Comunale proposes the construction of three (3) industrial buildings, totaling 248,000 square feet (“sq. ft.”) on approximately 20 acres of land in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Attachment 1 contains maps of the study area, including a vicinity map depicting the location of the study area (Figure 1), an aerial overview map (Figure 2), and a 7.5-minute series USGS topographic map (Figure 3). Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Site Description Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 3–1 3.0 Site Description The United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Natural Resources Conservation Service (“NRCS”) designates Land Resource Regions (“LRR”) based on similar ecological traits present within an area. The NRCS hones these designations further into Major Land Resource Areas (“MLRA”). The study area is located within the Western Great Plains Range and Irrigated Region (“LRR G”) of the Great Plains Region and is more specifically located in Major Land Resource Area (“MLRA”) 67B (Central High Plains, Southern Part). This area is characterized by an elevated, smooth to slightly irregular plain made of sediments deposited by rivers that drain from the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. Where herbaceous and shrub vegetation are dominant, short prairie grasses such as Needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), Prairie Junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), Blue Grama (Bouteloua gracilis), Galleta (Hilaria spp.), Threeawn (Aristida purpurea), Ring Muhly (Muhlenbergia torreyi), and Alkali Sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) are commonly encountered. Where trees are encountered, Cottonwood (Populus spp.) are common along streams and a mix of Juniper (Juniperus) and Pinyon (Pinus edulis) can be found in rocky soils. Average precipitation ranges from 12 to 18 inches per year in most of the region. Most of the precipitation occurs in spring through late autumn and manifests as snow during the winter. The soils can range from very shallow to very deep and are typically well drained with a general texture of loam or clay. Currently the study area consists of undeveloped agricultural land surrounded by additional agricultural land and commercial development. The western portion of the study area contains wetlands adjacent to Cooper Slough, which is located west of the study area. Herbaceous vegetation dominates the study area. Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Methods Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–1 4.0 Methods 4.1 Map and Database Review The following information sources were consulted prior to and during the field delineation to assist in the identification of potential wetlands and waterbodies within the study area. 4.1.1 USGS Topo Maps USGS topographic maps illustrate elevation contours, drainage patterns, and hydrography. Spirit staff reviewed the Fort Collins, Colorado USGS Quad map to determine the likelihood of the study area containing jurisdictional waterbodies. 4.1.2 USFWS NWI Data Spirit staff reviewed NWI data as a resource to determine the likelihood of wetland features in the study area. 4.1.3 NRCS Soil Survey Data The United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) NRCS maintains an online Web Soil Survey database. The data provided in the Web Soil Survey provides a standard basis for the soil textures and types one can expect at a delineation area. Spirit staff obtained reports for the NRCS-mapped soil types at the site to determine the likelihood of the soils in the study area exhibiting hydric characteristics. NRCS-mapped soil types are assigned a hydric indicator status of “hydric” or “non-hydric” by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 4.1.4 Aerial Photography Aerial photography, both current and historic, provides insight to the state and function of land. Signs of inundation and vegetative signatures on aerial images indicate whether land might be functioning as a wetland. Spirit staff reviewed historic and current aerial photography available on Google Earth, prior to and during the field delineation, in order to further understand the nature of the study area. Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Methods Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–2 4.1.5 FEMA FIRM The Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) maintains flood insurance rate maps (“FIRM”). The FIRM of the site was reviewed to determine if the 100-year floodplain is present. The USACE uses the 100-year floodplain to assist in determining jurisdiction of aquatic features. 4.1.6 Climatological Observations The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) maintains records of climate data collected from regional stations. Spirit obtained climate data from the closest NOAA station to the study area, which was the Fort Collins 4 E, CO US GHCND Station USC00053006. This station is approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the study area. 4.2 Wetland Delineation Wetlands in the study area were delineated based on the 1987 Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement and the three (3) parameters – hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrological characteristics – at selected data points within a study area. Data points are located in representative areas to ascertain upland/wetland boundaries and to record significant spatial changes in wetland plant communities. All three (3) parameters must be met in order for the area to be classified as a wetland (in normal circumstances). Spirit staff collected geospatial data by utilizing a Trimble GeoXT 2005 Series Global Positioning System (“GPS”) device with sub-meter accuracy. Removal of material or additional of fill into waters of the United States (“WOTUS”), including wetlands, are regulated by the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (“RHA”) and Section 404 of the CWA. Section 10 of the RHA applies to all navigable WOTUS, and those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of tides, including any wetlands located below the Mean High Water (“MHW”) line of tidal waters. Section 404 of the CWA applies to all waters, including wetlands, that have a significant nexus to a Traditional Navigable Water (“TNW”). Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Methods Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–3 4.2.1 Hydrology Wetland hydrology is characterized when, under normal circumstances, the surface is either inundated or the upper horizon(s) of the soil are saturated at a sufficient frequency and duration to create anaerobic conditions. Seasonal and long-term rainfall patterns, local geology and topography, soil type, local water table conditions, and drainage are factors that control hydrology. Wetland hydrology indicators include: surface water, high water tables, saturation, water marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, surface soil cracks, inundation visible on aerial imagery, water-stained leaves, salt crusts, biotic crusts, aquatic invertebrates, hydrogen sulfide odor, oxidized rhizospheres along living roots, the presence of iron reduction in tilled soils, thin muck surfaces, drainage patterns, crayfish burrows, and shallow aquitards. During the field survey, these indicators were used to determine if a plot area contained wetland hydrology. 4.2.2 Vegetation In accordance with the procedure set forth in the 1987 Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement, the hydrophytic status of vegetation communities was determined by identifying dominant species and, if necessary, calculating a "Prevalence Index." Individual plant species were checked against the 2016 National Wetland Plant List (“NWPL”) and their regional wetland indicator status determined. Species are classified as: • Obligate Wetland (“OBL”) if they almost always occur in wetlands (>99 percent of the time), • Facultative Wetland (“FACW”) if they usually occur in wetlands (67-99 percent of the time), • Facultative (“FAC”) if they are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (34-66 percent of the time), • Facultative Upland (“FACU”) if they usually occur in non-wetlands (67-99 percent of the time), and Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Methods Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 4–4 • Obligate Upland (“UPL”) if they almost always occur in non-wetlands (>99 percent of the time). A no indicator (“NI”) status is recorded for those species for which insufficient information is available to determine an indicator status. Hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation is considered prevalent where more than 50 percent of the dominant species in a plant community have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC. However, in cases where the vegetation community does not meet this hydrophytic threshold but indicators of hydric soils and wetlands hydrology are present, the prevalence index can be applied. Calculation of this index is based on consideration of both dominant and non-dominant plants in the vegetation community, whereby each indicator status category is given a numeric code and weighted by absolute percent cover. The prevalence index ranges from 1 to 5 and an index of 3.0 or less signifies that hydrophytic vegetation is present. In the current delineation, and as shown on the wetland determination data sheets in Attachment 2, a prevalence index was calculated for each sampling station's vegetation community. 4.2.3 Soils Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons. The anaerobic conditions created by repeated or prolonged saturation or flooding results in permanent changes in soil color and chemistry. These changes in soil color are used to differentiate hydric from non-hydric soils. At each data point, in areas where the absence of inundation or heavy saturation allowed, a pit was excavated to a depth of at least 16 inches to reveal soil profiles and to determine whether positive indicators of hydric soils were present. Hydric soil indicators relate to color, structure, organic content, and the presence of reducing conditions. Color characteristics (Hue, Value, and Chroma) were recorded using Munsell® Charts. 4.3 Waterbody Survey No waterbodies were observed onsite; therefore, width, depth, and flow classification (perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral) were not collected. Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 5–1 5.0 Results 5.1 Map and Database Review 5.1.1 USGS Topo Maps A review of the USGS Fort Collins, Colorado Quad map attached in Figure 3 showed the site gradually sloping to the southwest towards Cooper Slough. The elevation varies in the study area from 4,944 ft. to 4,955 ft. above sea level. Topographic signatures indicate that the southwestern study area boundary is slightly lower in elevation than the rest of the study area. This area was observed during field reconnaissance to contain a wetland vegetative community dominated by Broadleaf Cattail (Typha latifolia). 5.1.2 USFWS NWI Data A review of available NWI data showed the study area contains two (2) NWI wetland features: one (1) PEM1A (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded) and one (1) PEM1C (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Temporary Flooded). These features are mapped along the aerially-identified Typha community within the topographic depression identified onsite (Figure 4). 5.1.3 NRCS Soil Survey Data According to the Web Soil Survey database, three (3) mapped soil units, described in the table below, are represented onsite. One (1) soil unit identified in the study area is identified as hydric: Longmont Clay (63). This soil unit has no frequency of ponding and occasional frequency of flooding, with a depth to water table varying between 24-30 inches. Refer to Figure 5 for an illustration of the mapped soil units. Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 5–2 Table 5-1 NRCS Soils Data Unit Name Description Hydric/ Non-hydric 40 Garrett Loam, 0-1% slopes Well drained soils, grayish brown to reddish brown, loam to sandy loam to sandy clay loam in texture Non-Hydric 63 Longmont Clay, 0-3% slopes Poorly drained soils, light brownish gray to light olive brown, clay Hydric 73 Nunn Clay Loam, 0-1% slopes Very deep, well drained soils, graying brown to pale brown, clay loam to loam Non-Hydric 5.1.4 Aerial Photography Based upon a review of the earliest available aerial photograph, 1999, the study area was utilized as agricultural land with a riparian corridor along the western study area boundary. The study area has remained in agricultural use since the earliest available aerial photograph. One (1) potential aquatic feature associated with the riparian area is visible in all reviewed historic aerials and may indicate a wetland or waterway. This feature is distinguished by visible ponding (2005, 2006, 2009 aerials), potential saturation signatures (1999, 2011, 2016 aerials), and a stark vegetative contrast from the surrounding landscape (2012, 2014, 2017 aerials). Indications of crop stress are visible in the 2012 aerial as areas of lighter vegetation cover the western half of the study area. Areas within the agricultural field depicted as having vegetative stress were field verified as being non-wetland. 5.1.5 FEMA FIRM A review of FEMA FIRMs indicated that the western edge of the study area is located within the 100-year floodplain. The remainder of the study area is listed as an area of minimal flood hazard. Figure 6 in Attachment 1 illustrates the location of the Cooper Slough floodplain in relation to the study area. 5.1.6 Climatological Observations A review of climatological data provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) obtained the following results for the study area. The results, although not site-specific, represent rainfall trends for the region surrounding the site. Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 5–3 Chart 5-1 Rainfall Trends for Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado These data show three (3) precipitation events in the month prior to the field delineation. In total, 0.25 inches of rain and 3.8 inches of snow fell between January 15 and February 15, 2019. The largest precipitation event for this time frame occurred ten (10) days prior to the field visit and included 0.14 inches of rain and 2.0 inches of snow. Field staff did not observe snow or ponding of water onsite from the most recent precipitation event. The delineation was conducted on a day with sunny, clear skies. The same timeframe in 2018 received 14.5 inches of snow and 0.85 inches of rain, indicating that the current year is drier than the previous year. 5.2 Wetland Delineation Spirit staff conducted a wetland and waterbody field survey in the study area on February 15, 2019. Figure 7 illustrates the locations of the six (6) sampling points taken during the delineation as well as the wetland boundaries. Two (2) wetland features, one (1) concrete irrigation channel, and one (1) erosional rill were identified within the study area. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 1/15/20191/16/20191/17/20191/18/20191/19/20191/20/20191/21/20191/22/20191/23/20191/24/20191/25/20191/26/20191/27/20191/28/20191/29/20191/30/20191/31/20192/1/20192/2/20192/3/20192/4/20192/5/20192/6/20192/7/20192/8/20192/9/20192/10/20192/11/20192/12/20192/13/20192/14/20192/15/2019Precipitation (Inches)2019 Rain Snow Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 5–4 5.2.1 Hydrology Five (5) data points, “DP1” through “DP5”, exhibited primary or secondary wetland hydrological indicators; however, DP2 and DP4 were not determined to not represent wetlands. DP1 exhibited the primary hydrological indicator of Algal Mat or Crust (B4) as seen as a green tinge on the soil between the Typha stems (see Attachment 3: Photograph 5). DP5 exhibited the primary hydrological indicator of Saturation (A3). DP1 and DP5 both exhibited two (2) secondary hydrological indicators of Geomorphic position (D2) and FAC-neutral test (D5). These sampling points were located within the floodplain and within a depressional feature; therefore, secondary indicator D2 was selected. DP3 exhibited two (2) secondary hydrological indicators as well, FAC-neutral test (D5) and Drainage Pattern (B10) (See Attachment 3, Photographs 4 and 11). It should be noted that the data points were collected in representative habitats and that all wetlands identified onsite exhibited at least one (1) primary hydrological indicator. 5.2.2 Vegetation The majority of the study area is agricultural in nature and exhibits a separate vegetative community than that observed along the western boundary (see Attachment 3: Photographs 1 and 18). The currently fallow agricultural field was previously planted with a cultivated wheat species (Triticum spp.); however, weedy herbaceous plants have moved into the field including Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and Yellow Foxtail (Setaria pumila). Additionally, this delineation was conducted outside of the growing season and vegetation, where identified, was the previous season’s growth. Representative dominant taxa observed within the remaining portions of the study area are described in the tables below. Indicator status for each species was obtained from the 2016 NWPL. It should be noted that no Triticum species were listed on the NWPL; therefore, it is assumed that this plant is an upland species. Table 5-2 Upland Dominant Plant Species Strata Species Name Common Name Indicator Status Herbaceous Chenopodium album Lambsquarters FACU Herbaceous Distichlis spicata Saltgrass FACW Herbaceous Dactylis glomerata Orchardgrass FACU Herbaceous Triticum aestivus Wheat UPL Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 5–5 Table 5-3 Wetland Dominant Plant Species Strata Species Name Common Name Indicator Status Herbaceous Asclepias speciosa Showy Milkweed FAC Herbaceous Juncus balticus Baltic Rush FACW Herbaceous Schoenoplectus pungens Common Threesquare OBL Herbaceous Typha latifolia Broadleaf Cattail OBL 5.2.3 Soils Subsurface soil profiles were obtained at each sample point throughout the site. At many sampling points, a layer of frozen soil was observed of varying thicknesses. Where possible, soil pits were dug and assessed. DP1 was the only wetland soil pit for which a complete soil profile was not obtained as the amount of frozen ground restricted shovel access. Upland sampling points exhibited smaller frozen layers than their wetland counterparts. Multiple soil pits were attempted in areas where a full soil pit was not obtained. Generally, upland-identified soils consisted of very dark grayish brown to gray, loamy clay soils with matrix colors in the 10YR soil-color charts. Upland point DP4 exhibited a depleted matrix in the four (4) to 16-inch layer; however, this sampling point exhibited a loamy texture similar to the soils found at the upland point taken in the agricultural field. This datapoint is located on an earthen berm set between the two (2) depressional areas and was determined to be non-wetland. The Typha-dominated wetland community of Wetland 1 consisted of black clay soils with brown redox; however, a full soil profile was not obtained in this area as frozen soils prevented complete sample collection. The soil sampled at this pit qualified for hydric soil indicator F6 – Redox Dark Surface, as redox concentrations were distinct and greater than 5 percent, with a layer depth of greater than four (4) inches starting within the top eight (8) inches of soil. Soil pits in Wetland 2 ranged widely in matrix colors from black (10YR 2/1) to dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) to grayish brown (10YR 5/2) and exhibited a clay texture. Redoximorphic features were observed as both concentrations and depletions within both the matrix and the pore lining and ranging from three (3) to 25 percent. Redoximorphic feature color ranged greatly with concentrations spanning multiple hues and with depletions from pale brown (10YR 6/3) to Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Results Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 5–6 white (10YR 8/1). Sampling points within Wetland 2 exhibited two (2) hydric soil indicators: Depleted Matrix (F3) and Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11). 5.3 Waterbody Survey No natural waterbodies were observed in the study area. One (1) man-made irrigation channel and one (1) erosional rill were identified within the study area. The small erosional rill has formed between the concrete irrigation channel and Wetland 1 where the channel ends and empties into the wetland feature. This erosional rill is less than one (1) foot in width by 0.5-foot-deep by approximately 17 feet in length and has formed as a result of runoff from the concrete irrigation channel into the wetland feature. The concrete irrigation channel is 1,313 linear feet (“LF”) in length and is approximately four (4) feet wide. This feature receives controlled water inputs via pump at its northern end. This water then exits the irrigation channel and enters the erosional rill before emptying into Wetland 1 in the northwestern corner of the study area. Additionally, one (1) roadside drainage ditch was identified along the outside edge of the southern study area boundary which will be impacted by the proposed development. This roadside drainage ditch is 1,361 linear feet with an average width of 3.5 feet. Figure 7 within Attachment 1 depicts the location of the waterbodies observed during the delineation. Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Conclusion Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 6–1 6.0 Conclusion Spirit conducted a wetland and waterbody delineation associated with a parcel of agricultural land located on approximately 20 acres in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Field efforts were performed on February 15, 2019. Two (2) wetland features, one (1) concrete irrigation channel, and one (1) erosional rill were identified within the study area. Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 are palustrine emergent wetlands separated by an earthen berm that may see occasional flooding due to their location within the floodplain. Wetland 1 receives water inputs from outside of the study area to the north as the wetland feature continues offsite along a topographic depression, as well as from a concrete agricultural irrigation channel along the northern study area boundary. Wetland 2 receives water inputs from Wetland 1 at the northern-most point where the two (2) wetlands are adjacent. These wetland features may also share hydrology across lower points within the earthen berm during extreme flooding events. Wetland 2 then drains back into Wetland 1 on its southern end, where Wetland 1 continues offsite before joining Cooper Slough 360 feet west of the study area. Wetland 1 is topographically lower than Wetland 2; however, both features are depressions underlain by clay soils, creating ideal conditions for prolonged saturation and ponding. The area west of Wetland 2 contains a berm associated with a fenceline for the nearby agricultural activities. The combination of berms on both the west and east side of Wetland 2 help create the topographic basin in which water accumulates. The State of Colorado currently utilizes guidance issued following the Supreme Court ruling of the Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States for determining what WOTUS are jurisdictional. This guidance, commonly referred to as the Rapanos Guidance, states that wetlands which abut relatively permanent waters (“RPW”) that are non-navigable tributaries of TNWs will be considered jurisdictional by the USACE. Through a review of aerial imagery and observations made during the delineation, Wetlands 1 and 2 continue offsite where they abut Cooper Slough, a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary. Cooper Slough flows south where it joins Lake Canal, which empties into the Windsor Reservoir. Windsor Reservoir is considered a TNW as it is currently being used for commercial navigation, including commercial water recreation, and may be susceptible to future use in interstate or foreign commerce including commercial water recreation. Given that Wetland 1 and Wetland 2 abut Cooper Slough (an RPW), Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Conclusion Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 6–2 which is a tributary to Lake Canal, which empties into Windsor Reservoir (a TNW), it is likely the USACE will assume jurisdiction over these features. The concrete irrigation channel is a man-made agricultural water conveyance that wraps around the property north of the study area. Water flow is controlled by a pump at the channels northern end where it then flows east along a concrete channel to NW Frontage Rd, then south along NW Frontage Rd, then heads west along the northern study area boundary before draining into Wetland 1. Given the agricultural nature of this feature, along with the manipulated and irregular flow duration and that it was not excavated from a natural feature, this feature is potentially non- jurisdictional to the USACE. Additionally, the USACE generally does not assume jurisdiction over low-flow, short duration erosional features such as the erosional rill connecting the irrigation channel with Wetland 1. As such, the USACE will likely not assume jurisdiction over this feature. The roadside drainage ditch identified outside the southern boundary of the study area is also a man-made feature that is located wholly within uplands, drains only uplands, and was not excavated from a natural feature. As such, the USACE will likely not assume jurisdiction over this feature. Spirit’s professional opinions offered in this report are based on best professional judgement, but it should be noted that only the USACE may make a final determination of the location of wetland and waterbody boundaries and their jurisdiction. To obtain an official wetland determination from the USACE, this report should be submitted to the Omaha District Office of the USACE. Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties References Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 7–1 7.0 References Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm (Version 04DEC1998). Climate Data Online. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available online at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets. Accessed February 2019. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2011. Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Larimer County. Available online at http://fema.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer. Accessed February 2019. Google Inc. (2009). Google Earth (Version 5.1.3533.1731) [Software]. Accessed February 2019. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Lists of Hydric Soils. National List; all states. United States Department of Agriculture. National Resource Conservation Service. Available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. Accessed February 2019. Munsell® Soil Color Charts. 2009. GretagMacbeth, New Windsor, New York Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. Available online at www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS?nrcs142p2-050898.pdf. Accessed February 2019. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed February 2019. Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties References Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 7–2 United States, Congress, Grumbles, Benjamin H, and John Paul Woodley. “Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States.” Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, United States EPA & United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2 Dec. 2008. Available online: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 02/documents/cwa_jurisdiction_following_rapanos120208.pdf. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Regulatory Guidance Letter: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. Available online http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/rg105- 05.pdf. Accessed February 2019. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). March 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Attachments Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F 8–1 8.0 Attachments 1. Figures 2. Wetland Determination Data Forms 3. Site Photographs Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Attachments Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F Attachment 1 Figures Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, EsriChina (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GISUser Community FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATIONVICINITY MAPCOMUNALE PROPERTIESLARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Note: This is not anofficial land survey. Figure No.: 1 ± Drawn By: MShields 1626 Wazee St. Suite 2ADenver, CO 80202 Site Visit Date: 2/15/19 0 0.6 1.20.3 Miles FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION40.592485°, -105.001792°I-25Larimer County Colorado Colorado and Southern Railroad CacheLaPoudreRiver CacheLaPoudreReservoirInlet Larimerand Weld Canal Mulberry St. Running Deer Natural Area Cottonwood HollowNatural Area Riverbend PondsNatural AreaCattail ChorusNatural Area Kingfisher PointNatural Area NixNatural Area WilliamsNatural AreaSpringerNatural Area Legacy Park Lee Martinez Park Project No.: 19202.00F Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATIONAERIAL OVERVIEW MAPCOMUNALE PROPERTIESLARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Note: This is not anofficial land survey. Figure No.: 2 ± Drawn By: MShields 1626 Wazee St. Suite 2ADenver, CO 80202 Site Visit Date: 2/15/19 0 150 30075Feet FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION40.592485°, -105.001792°NW Frontage RoadI-25Redman Drive Larimer County Colorado Project No.: 19202.00F Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATIONTOPOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW MAPCOMUNALE PROPERTIESLARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Note: This is not anofficial land survey. Figure No.: 3 ± Drawn By: MShields 1626 Wazee St. Suite 2ADenver, CO 80202 Site Visit Date: 2/15/19 0 600 1,200300Feet FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION40.592485°, -105.001792°NW Frontage RoadI-25Larimer County Colorado Cooper Slou g h Larimer and Weld Can al Project No.: 19202.00F Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATIONNWI FEATURES MAPCOMUNALE PROPERTIESLARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Note: This is not anofficial land survey. Figure No.: 4 ± Drawn By: MShields 1626 Wazee St. Suite 2ADenver, CO 80202 Site Visit Date: 2/15/19 0 150 30075Feet FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION40.592485°, -105.001792°NW Frontage RoadI-25Redman Drive Legend Delineation Boundary Palustrine Emergent Wetland - PEM1A Palustrine Emergent Wetland - PEM1C P E M 1A PEM1CPEM1A Project No.: 19202.00F 22 22 53 73 63 40 73 76 76 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATIONNRCS SOILS MAPCOMUNALE PROPERTIESLARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Note: This is not anofficial land survey. Figure No.: 5 ± Drawn By: MShields 1626 Wazee St. Suite 2ADenver, CO 80202 Site Visit Date: 2/15/19 0 150 30075Feet FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION40.592485°, -105.001792°NW Frontage RoadI-25Redman Drive Legend Delineation Boundary 22 - Caruso clay loam, 0to 1 percent slope 40 - Garrett loam, 0 to 1percent slopes 53 - Kim loam, 1 to 3percent slopes 63 - Longmont clay, 0 to3 percent slopes 73 - Nunn clay loam, 0 to1 percent slopes 76 - Nunn clay loam,wet, 1 to 3 percentslopes Project No.: 19202.00F Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATIONFEMA FLOOD MAPCOMUNALE PROPERTIESLARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Note: This is not anofficial land survey. Figure No.: 6 ± Drawn By: MShields 1626 Wazee St. Suite 2ADenver, CO 80202 Site Visit Date: 2/15/19 0 150 30075Feet FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION40.592485°, -105.001792°NW Frontage RoadI-25Redman Drive Legend Delineation Boundary Flood Zone 100-Year Flood Zone Area of Mnimial FloodHazard 100-Year Flood Zone Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Project No.: 19202.00F !( !( !( !(!( !( DP4 DP6DP5 DP3 DP2DP1 FORT COLLINS ECOLOGICAL CHARAC TERIZATIONAQUATIC FEATURES MAPCOMUNALE PROPERTIESLARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Note: This is not anofficial land survey. Figu re No .: 7 ± Drawn By: MSh iel ds 1626 Wazee St. Suit e 2ADenver, CO 80 202 Project No.: 19 202.00F Site Visit Da te: 2 /15/1 9 0 300 600150Feet FORT COLLINS E COLOGICA L CHA RACTERIZATION40.592485°, -105.001792°NW Frontage RoadI-25Redman Drive Leg end De line ation B ound ary PEM We tlands - 1.18 acres Co ncrete Irrigat io n C hanne l - 1,31 3 linear feet Ero sio nal Rill - 17 linea r fee t Ro adside D ra in age Ditch - 1,361 line ar fe et !(Sam plin g P oints Se rvice La yer Credits: Source: Esri, D igitalGlobe, GeoEye , Earthstar G eographic s, CNES/Airbus DS,USD A, USGS, AeroGRI D, IG N, and t he G IS User Communit y Erosion al Ri ll (17 LF) Wetlan d 1(1.09 A C) Wetl an d 2(0.09 A C) !( !( !( DP4 DP5 DP3 Con crete Irri gatio n Chan nel (1,31 3 LF) Roadsid e Dra inage D itch(1,361 L F) Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Attachments Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F Attachment 2 Wetland Determination Data Forms Section, Township, Range: S DP1 15-Feb-19 2.0%1.1 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Datapoint taken within Typha community within NWI identified PEM1A feature. Typha community located in topographic depression that drains south offsite. Datapoint taken in NRCS-identified hydric soil. 10 0 10 0 100.0%0 0 *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. 0 0 100 100 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 100 100.0%OBL 0 0.0% 100.0% Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope: 0 ° Subregion (LRR): Lat.: Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) 0.0% 0 0.0% Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soil Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Absolute % Cover Indicator Status = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = (B) (A) (B) (A/B) 0.0% 0.0%0 0 0.0% 0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 0 100 100 100 Yes No0 Vegetation community solely Typha, no additional herb stratum on ground. Bare ground between Typha stems. Yes No Remarks: Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Tree Stratum 1. 2. TR 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Poudre Valley Development Comunale Properties MShields Depressional LRR G 40.591312°-105.007007° Longmont Clay (63) Fort Collins/Larimer CO 9 7N 68W WGS84 PEM1A Typha latifolia FWS Region:GP 1 1 1 1 (Plot size:30 ) (Plot size:15 ) (Plot size:5 ) (Plot size:) concave 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Remarks: Soil frozen 0-8 inches. *Texture for frozen soil was determined though melting soil/ice in hands prior to texturing soil. DP1 Mossy layer present on bare ground between Typha stems, green film on stems of some of the Typha. Datapoint taken within floodplain in a topographical depression. Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F,G,H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coastal Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (where not tilled) (where tilled) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix S4 (MLRA 72 and 73 of LRR H) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 and 73) 3 3 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType% See below. 1 0-8 10YR 2/1 85 10YR 4/3 10 C M Clay* Section, Township, Range: S DP2 15-Feb-19 1.0%0.6 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Datapoint taken outside of the depression which holds the Typha community. DP2 lower in the landscape than the agricultural field to the east, but not as low as the Typha community. Soils contain fill dirt. Datapoint taken in NRCS-identified hydric soil. 10 0 20 0 50.0%0 0 *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. 0 0 0 0 30 600 0 00 70 2800 0 0 30 30.0%FACW 70 70.0%FACU 3.400.0% Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope: 0 ° Subregion (LRR): Lat.: Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) 0.0% 0 0.0% Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soil Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Absolute % Cover Indicator Status = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = (B) (A) (B) (A/B) 0.0% 0.0%0 0 0.0% 0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 0 100 100 340 Yes No0 Vegetation managed through mowing and community does not reflect species diversity of undisturbed grassland areas. Yes No Remarks: Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Tree Stratum 1. 2. TR 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Poudre Valley Development Comunale Properties MShields Flat/Sloping LRR G 40.591248° -105.006941° Longmont Clay (63) Fort Collins/Larimer CO 9 7N 68W WGS84 NA Distichlis spicata Dactylis glomerata FWS Region:GP 1 1 1 1 (Plot size:30 ) (Plot size:15 ) (Plot size:5 ) (Plot size:15 ) flat 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Soil layer filled with small to medium sized stones/gravel throughout. DP2SoilSampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F,G,H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coastal Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: No other hydrologic indicators observed. Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Gravel 7.5 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (where not tilled) (where tilled) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix S4 (MLRA 72 and 73 of LRR H) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 and 73) 3 3 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType% Fill containing stones/gravel 1 0-7.5 10YR 3/1 100 Loamy Clay Section, Township, Range: S DP3 15-Feb-19 2.0%1.1 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Datapoint taken west of the Typha community in a depressional feature separated from the Typha community by a natural berm. This datapoint is not as topographically low as Typha community; however, Typha community appears to drain into this depressional feature at its north end. 2 0 0 20 0 100.0%0 0 *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. 0 0 0 0 90 1800 60 1800 0 00 0 0 60 40.0%FAC 90 60.0%FACW 2.400.0% Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope: 0 ° Subregion (LRR): Lat.: Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) 0.0% 0 0.0% Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soil Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Absolute % Cover Indicator Status = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = (B) (A) (B) (A/B) 0.0% 0.0%0 0 0.0% 0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 0 150 150 360 Yes No0 Canopy cover estimated as vegetation is laid down. Unable to obtain bare ground as the vegetation is laid down. Yes No Remarks: Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Tree Stratum 1. 2. TR 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Poudre Valley Development Comunale Properties MShields Depression LRR G 40.591754° -105.007118° Longmont Clay (63) Fort Collins/Larimer CO 9 7N 68W WGS84 None Asclepias speciosa Juncus balticus FWS Region:GP 1 1 1 1 (Plot size:30 ) (Plot size:15 ) (Plot size:5 ) (Plot size:15 ) concave 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Depletions increased as soil depth increased. Datapoint taken in NRCS identified hydric soil. DP3 Vegetation laid down and oriented north to south following pattern of flow. Datapoint also passes for geomorphic position as it was taken within floodplain in a depressional area. Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F,G,H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coastal Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) N/A Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (where not tilled) (where tilled) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix S4 (MLRA 72 and 73 of LRR H) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 and 73) 3 3 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType% Frozen, 1 0-2 2-8 8-16 10YR 10YR 10YR 10YR 4/1 3/1 4/2 4/1 60 35 90 75 10YR 10YR 10YR 10YR 10YR 4/3 7/1 7/2 4/4 5/3 5 5 5 20 5 C D D C C M M M M PL Clay Clay Clay Section, Township, Range: S DP4 15-Feb-19 0.0%0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Datapoint taken on berm between Typha community and depression to the west. Area dominated by monoculture of Chenopodium album. Datapoint taken in NRCS-identified hydric soil. 00 0 10 0 0.0%0 0 *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. 0 0 5 5 0 00 0 00 90 3600 0 0 5 5.3%OBL 5 5.3%FACU 3.8428589.5%FACU Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope: 0 ° Subregion (LRR): Lat.: Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) 0.0% 0 0.0% Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soil Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Absolute % Cover Indicator Status = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = (B) (A) (B) (A/B) 0.0% 0.0%0 0 0.0% 0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 0 95 95 365 Yes No5 Berm average of four feet wide but tapers in some places. Typha species listed due to presence in 5' plot but does not infiltrate the vegetation community of the berm. Ground on berm contains a lot of vegetative debris. Yes No Remarks: Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Tree Stratum 1. 2. TR 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Poudre Valley Development Comunale Properties MShields Berm LRR G 40.591857° -105.007040° Longmont Clay (63) Fort Collins/Larimer CO 9 7N 68W WGS84 None Typha latifolia Cirsium arvense Chenopodium album FWS Region:GP 1 1 1 1 (Plot size:30 ) (Plot size:15 ) (Plot size:5 ) (Plot size:15 ) convex 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 DP4 Although the area around this sample point contains vegetative debris on the ground, this did not present as drift deposits. Datapoint taken within floodplain but on a convex surface (berm) between depressional features. Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F,G,H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coastal Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (where not tilled) (where tilled) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix S4 (MLRA 72 and 73 of LRR H) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 and 73) 3 3 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType% Very crumbly soil 1 0-2 2-4 4-16 10YR 10YR 10YR 3/2 4/1 5/1 100 100 82 10YR 10YR 8/1 6/4 3 15 D C M M Loam Loam Section, Township, Range: S DP5 15-Feb-19 1.0%0.6 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Datapoint taken on northern end of depressional feature located west of the berm (and west of the Typha community). Veg. community shifted slightly to include S. pungens and C. album so point was captured to assess potential wetland characteristics. 20 0 30 0 66.7%0 0 *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. 0 0 40 40 15 300 20 600 25 1000 0 0 40 40.0%OBL 20 20.0%FAC 2.355.0%FACU Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope: 5 ° Subregion (LRR): Lat.: Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) 5.0%FACW 10 10.0%FACW Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soil Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: 20 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Absolute % Cover Indicator Status = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = (B) (A) (B) (A/B) FACU20.0% 0.0%0 0 0.0% 0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 0 100 100 230 Yes No5 C. album located on eastern side of 5' plot and did not extend into the rest of the plot. Milkweed and J.balticus on western side of plot. Plot is vegetatively split between milkweed/Juncus species and Disticlis/Bassia species. Yes No Remarks: Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Tree Stratum 1. 2. TR 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Poudre Valley Development Comunale Properties MShields Depressional LRR G 40.591965° -105.007099° Longmont Clay (63) Fort Collins/Larimer CO 9 7N 68W WGS84 PEM1C Schoenoplectus pungens Asclepias speciosa Chenopodium album Distichlis spicata Juncus balticus Bassia scoparia FWS Region:GP 1 1 1 1 (Plot size:30 ) (Plot size:15 ) (Plot size:5 ) (Plot size:15 ) concave 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 Soils: 9-16" (continued) 10YR 3/2 20%, redox- 10YR 5/8 with 5% concentrations in the matrix, clay texture. Soil was moist clay in the 9-16" layer, could not pull apart into separate pedons. DP5 9 Saturation at 9 inches, clay was slick and unable to separate. Datapoint passes secondary indicator of D2 because it is located within a depression within the floodplain. Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F,G,H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coastal Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (where not tilled) (where tilled) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix S4 (MLRA 72 and 73 of LRR H) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 and 73) 3 3 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType% Very clayey due to saturation, can't avoid 1 0-3 3-7 7-9 9-16 10YR 10YR 10YR 10YR 10YR 10YR 10YR 2/1 4/3 2/1 3/6 4/1 4/2 5/2 70 15 10 25 20 70 10YR 10YR 10YR 7.5YR 5YR 10YR 8/1 3/4 4/4 8/2 8/1 6/3 3 5 20 10 25 5 D C C D D D M M M M M M Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clayey/loam Section, Township, Range: S DP6 15-Feb-19 0.0%0.0 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Datapoint taken in an agricultural field in area exhibiting aerially identified crop stress signatures. Datapoint taken in NRCS non-hydric soil. 00 0 10 0 0.0%0 0 *Indicator suffix = National status or professional decision assigned because Regional status not defined by FWS. 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 15 600 40 200 10 18.2%FACU 5 9.1%FACU 4.7274072.7%UPL Project/Site:City/County:Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Great Plains Region Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope: 0 ° Subregion (LRR): Lat.: Long.: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.) 0.0% 0 0.0% Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soil Present? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Remarks: 0 Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Absolute % Cover Indicator Status = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Prevalence Index worksheet: Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 = x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = x 5 = (A) Prevalence Index = B/A = (B) (A) (B) (A/B) 0.0% 0.0%0 0 0.0% 0 2 - Dominance Test is > 50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 4 - Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain) 1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 0 US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 0 55 55 260 Yes No45 Fallow agricultural field. Yes No Remarks: Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Tree Stratum 1. 2. TR 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Poudre Valley Development Comunale Properties MShields Flat LRR G 40.591983° -105.004922° Nunn Clay Loam 0-1% slopes (73) Fort Collins/Larimer CO 9 7N 68W WGS84 None Amaranthus retroflexus Setaria pumila ssp. pumila Triticum aestivus FWS Region:GP 1 1 1 1 (Plot size:) (Plot size:) (Plot size:) (Plot size:) flat 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) US Army Corps of Engineers Great Plains - Version 2.0 DP6 No hydrology observed. Soil Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 1Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soil Present? Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR F) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR F,G,H) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Muck Mineral (S1) 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G, H) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox depressions (F8) High Plains Depressions (F16) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR I, J) Coastal Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR F, G, H) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR G) High Plains Depressions (F16) Other (Explain in Remarks) Type: Depth (inches): Hydrology Remarks: Soil disturbed via tilling. Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift deposits (B3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (B5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Salt Crust (B11) Dry Season Water Table (C2) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Frost Heave Hummocks (D7) (LRR F) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) FAC-neutral Test (D5) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (where not tilled) (where tilled) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR F) Sandy Gleyed Matrix S4 (MLRA 72 and 73 of LRR H) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) (LRR H outside of MLRA 72 and 73) 3 3 Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Depth (inches) Color (moist) Color (moist) Matrix Redox Features %Loc²Texture RemarksType%1 0-16 10YR 3/2 100 Loamy Clay Wetland Delineation Report Comunale Properties Attachments Spirit Environmental, LLC March 1, 2019, Revised March 21, 2019 19202.00F Attachment 3 Site Visit Photograph Poudre Valley Development, Fort Collins, CO Site Visit Photographs Photo 1: Overview of agricultural community in the study area. Photo 2: Overview of wetland communities in the study area. Photo 3: Overview of Wetland 1 facing north.Photo 4: Overview of Wetland 2 facing south. Photo 5: View of hydrology at vegetative community within Wetland 1 at DP1. Photo 6: View of landcape setting at DP1 facing east. Spirit Environmental, LLC 19202.00F February 15, 2019 1 Poudre Valley Development, Fort Collins, CO Site Visit Photographs Photo 7: View of fill dirt present at DP2.Photo 8: View of landscape setting at DP2 in relation to Wetland 1. Photo 9: View of redoximorphic features identified in soils at DP3. Photo 10: View of soil profile at DP3. Photo 11: View of landscape setting at DP3 showing hydrology facing north along Wetland 2. Photo 12: View of soil profile at DP4. Spirit Environmental, LLC 19202.00F February 15, 2019 2 Poudre Valley Development, Fort Collins, CO Site Visit Photographs Photo 13: View of landscape setting at DP4 showing wetland communities split by earthen berm. Photo 14: View of saturation within soils at DP5. Photo 15: View of redoximorphic features identified in soils at DP5. Photo 16: View of landscape setting at DP5 facing north. Photo 17: View of soil profile at DP6 taken within the agricultural field. Photo 18: View of landscape setting at DP6 facing west towards the wetland features. Spirit Environmental, LLC 19202.00F February 15, 2019 3 Poudre Valley Development, Fort Collins, CO Site Visit Photographs Photo 19: View of concerete-lined drainage channel along nothern study area boundary facing east. Photo 20: View of erosional rill created by runoff through the concrete-lined drainage and emptying into Wetland 1. Photo 21: View of roadside drainage ditch along southern study area boundary. #N/A #N/A #N/A Spirit Environmental, LLC 19202.00F February 15, 2019 4