Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4C Standard Wetland Permit WET2018-00004 Call Up M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Board FROM: Christin Shepherd, Senior Civil Engineer DATE: June 5, 2020 CALL UP ITEM: Standard Wetland Permit (WET2018-00004) Replace Existing Potable Water Pipeline Southwest of US Highway 36 Key Dates Wetland permit approved by staff: 6/5/2020 The decision may be called up by Planning Board on or before: 6/19/2020 There is one Planning Board meeting within the 14 day call up period on: 6/18/2020 Project Description The City of Lafayette is proposing to replace an existing drinking water line within City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks. The existing steel pipeline was constructed in the 1970’s or 1980’s and is nearing the end of its service life. Numerous breaks have been discovered and the water line is deteriorating. Replacing the existing drinking water line now decreases the chance of complete failure. Wetland Review Criteria for Standard Wetland Permits • Hydrology: Ground water currently provides the supportive wetland hydrology and would continue to the be the water source for the wetlands after restoration. The proposed construction will not permanently or negatively affect the wetland hydrology. • Minimization: Disturbed uplands and residential roads will be used for construction access and staging. Temporarily impacted areas will be restored to preconstruction elevations. All wetland will be mitigated in place and there are no permanent wetland impacts. Construction fencing will be erected around woody vegetation that is not planned for removal. • Restoration of Temporary Impacts: Revegetation of disturbed areas with native seed will reestablish the functions and values of the wetlands temporarily impacted. • Best Management Practices: Silt fences will be placed along the wetland boundaries to ensure that those wetlands are not disturbed by the activities within the staging areas. • Protection of Species: The area was evaluated for threats to U.S Fish and Wildlife listed threatened and endangered species, Prebles’s meadow jumping mouse, Ute ladies’-tresses Agenda Item 4C Page 1 of 72 orchid and Colorado butterfly plant. The proposed project would have no effect on threatened, endangered or candidate species. • Mitigation Plan: The restoration areas will be monitored for five years to ensure successful mitigation and annual monitoring reports will be submitted to the City of Boulder. Site visits will be conducted at the end of each growing season to determine project success (80% of the site is vegetated). The proposed project will have the following impacts to city regulated wetlands: Permanent (sq. ft.) Temporary (sq. ft.) Wetland 0 41,207 Inner Buffer 0 25,047 Outer Buffer 0 24,306 Associated Floodplain Development Permits This project is not within the 100-year floodplain and does not require a separate floodplain development permit. Additional Information The City of Boulder regulates wetlands and wetland buffers on lands within the City of Boulder limits and on City of Boulder-owned land outside the city limits. This project is located on Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) property. OSMP has also reviewed and approved this wetland permit application. Questions about the project should be directed to: Christin Shepherd, PE, CFM Floodplain and Wetland Administrator 303-441-3425 ShepherdC2@bouldercolorado.gov. Attachments: A. Vicinity Map B. Wetland Permit Application C. Wetland Permit Report Agenda Item 4C Page 2 of 72 © 2020 City of Boulder, Colorado S U B J E C T T O R E V I S I O N All rights reserved. The map information contained hereon is intended for the sole use of the purchaser and may not be copied, duplicated or redistributed in any way, in whole or in part, without the expressed written consent of the City of Boulder. The information depicted is provided as a graphical representation only. While source documents were developed in compliance with National Map Accuracy Standards, the City of Boulder provides no guarantee, express or Implied, as to the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained hereon. Map produced by the City of Boulder Planning & Developement Services DepartmentFor information call (303) 441-3266 or visit us on the web at http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/pwplan ¸ Attachment A - Vicinity Map 0 1,000 2,000500Feet Print Date: 6/2/2020 Legend City Limits Parcels ATTACHMENT A Agenda Item 4C Page 3 of 72 ATTACHMENT BAgenda Item 4C Page 4 of 72 ATTACHMENT BAgenda Item 4C Page 5 of 72 Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment Denver 1842 Clarkson St. Denver, CO 80218 303.830.1188 Durango 1015 ½ Main Avenue Durango, CO 81301 970.422.2136 Hotchkiss P.O. Box 932 161 South 2nd St. Hotchkiss, CO 81419 970.872.3020 Idaho 4001 East Main Street Emmett, ID 83617 208.365.7684 www.eroresources.com ERO Resources Corp. February 18, 2020 Ms. Christin Shepherd City of Boulder 1739 Broadway, P.O. Box 791 Boulder, Colorado 80306 RE: City of Boulder Wetland Permit Requests for Merry Lane Water Line Replacement Dear Ms. Shepherd: Attached are the revised Standard Wetland Permit supplemental report for the Merry Lane Water Line Replacement project near Merry Lane and U.S. Highway 36 in Boulder, Colorado (review number WET2018-00004). ERO incorporate responses to comments provided by Planning and Development Services into the report. Please review the attached information. Feel free to contact me at (303) 830-1188 if you have any questions or if you need additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, Clint Henke Biologist Attachments cc via email: Melanie Asquith, City of Lafayette ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 6 of 72       Denver • Durango • Hotchkiss • Idaho     www.eroresources.com  3 Consultants in Natural Resources and the Environment              City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application  Merry Lane Waterline Replacement  City and County of Boulder, Colorado                Prepared for—    City of Lafayette  1290 South Public Road  Lafayette, Colorado 80026      Prepared by—    ERO Resources Corporation  1842 Clarkson Street  Denver, Colorado 80218  (303) 830‐1188  ERO Project #6726      February 18, 2020        ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 7 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application  Merry Lane Waterline Replacement  City and County of Boulder, Colorado    ERO Project #6726 i  ERO Resources Corporation  Contents  Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1  Location ................................................................................................................................... 1  Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................... 1  Streams, Wetlands, and Water Body Protection ....................................................................... 3  Wetland Classification ..................................................................................................................... 4  Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................... 5  Wetlands 1a, 1b, and 1c .................................................................................................................. 5  Wetland 2a and 2b ......................................................................................................................... 10  Wetland 3, 4, and 5 ........................................................................................................................ 10  Other Waters ................................................................................................................................. 10  Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ................................................................... 11  Description of Activities ......................................................................................................... 13  Public Need .................................................................................................................................... 13  Description of Impacts ........................................................................................................... 13  Extent of Permanent Adverse Effects ............................................................................................ 14  Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................................... 14  Uniqueness or Scarcity of Wetlands .............................................................................................. 14  Alternatives Analysis .............................................................................................................. 14  Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland Impacts .................................................................. 15  Construction Methods and Best Management Practices .............................................................. 15  Wetland Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................................................ 16  References ............................................................................................................................. 17    Tables  Table 1.  Wetland Area, Cowardin Classification, and HGM. ........................................................... 5  Table 2. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in  Boulder County or potentially affected by projects in Boulder County. ................................. 11  Table 3.  Impacts on Trees ............................................................................................................. 14  Table 4.  Temporary Impact Acreage for Wetlands ....................................................................... 14  Table 5.  Wetland Seed Mix. .......................................................................................................... 16  Table 6. Wetland Seed Mix. ........................................................................................................... 16       ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 8 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application  Merry Lane Waterline Replacement  City and County of Boulder, Colorado    ERO Project #6726 ii  ERO Resources Corporation  Figures  Figure 1. Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 2  Figure 2. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 7  Figure 3. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 8  Figure 4. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 9    Appendices  Appendix A Photo Log  Appendix B Section 404 Permit and Biological Opinion  Appendix C U.S. Fish and Wildlife Correspondence  Appendix D Construction Drawings  ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 9 of 72   ERO Project #6726 1  ERO Resources Corporation  City of Boulder Wetland  Permit Application  Merry Lane Waterline Replacement  City and County of Boulder, Colorado    February 18, 2020    Introduction  The City of Lafayette (Lafayette) is proposing to replace an existing water line within City of Boulder  Open Space and Mountain Parks in Boulder County, Colorado (Figure 1; project area).  On behalf of  Lafayette, ERO Resources Corporation (ERO) is submitting this document as a portion of the application  for a City of Boulder Standard Wetland Permit as described in Chapter 9‐3‐9 of the City of Boulder’s  Streams, Wetlands and Water Body Protection Ordinance (City of Boulder’s wetland ordinance) for the  proposed project.  The existing pipeline is a potable water distribution pipeline that delivers water from  the Lafayette system to customers located southwest of U.S. Highway 36. The primary purpose of the  existing pipeline is to provide domestic drinking water and to serve as a form of fire protection. Since  the existing pipeline is the only distribution pipeline to the area, there is no redundancy within the  current water delivery system.  The existing pipeline is believed to have been constructed in the 1970s  or 1980s and, as such, is near the end of its service life. The pipeline is constructed of steel, which is  more susceptible to failure and has a shorter lifespan than other common potable water pipelines such  as ductile iron or PVC.  In recent years, Lafayette has documented several breaks along the existing  pipeline.  Based on the condition of the pipe observed when repairs were made, the pipeline exists in a  deteriorated condition and needs to be replaced.  Lafayette currently has an easement through City of  Boulder OSMP for the pipeline that has been in place since construction of the pipeline.    Location  The project area is in Sections 10 and 11, Township 1 South, Range 70 West of the 6th Principal Meridian  in Boulder County, Colorado (Figure 1).  The UTM coordinates for the approximate center of the project  area are 482320mE and 4425158mN, Zone 13N.  The longitude/latitude for the project area is  105.207048°W/39.976399°N.  The elevation of the project area is approximately 5,420 feet above sea  level.   Existing Conditions  Much of the project area is within undeveloped land or in light residential areas.  The project area  consists of a meadow vegetation community.  The vegetation within the project area is primarily  composed of big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens),  redtop (Agrostis stolinifera), witchgrass (Panicum capillare), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), licorice  (Glycyrrhiza lepidota), intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), blue grama (Bouteloua  gracilis), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), mountain rush (Juncus arcticus), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata),  and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum).    ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 10 of 72 Study Area Prepared for: City of Lafayette File: 6726 Figure 1.mxd [dlH]February 8, 2018 Figure 1Vicinity MapMerry Lane Waterline Replacement Portions of this document include intellectual property of ESRI and its licensors and are used herein under license. Copyright © 2016 ESRI and its licensors. All rights reserved. COLORADO Location Sections 10 and 11, T1S, R70W; 6th PMUTM NAD 83: Zone 13N; 482320mE, 4425158mNLatitude, Longitude: 39.976399°N, 105.207048°WUSGS Louisville, CO QuadrangleBoulder County, Colorado ±0 1,500750feet Type Limit of Wetland Delineation Path: P:\6700 Projects\6726 Lafayette Merry Lane T&E\Maps\6726 Figure 1.mxdCopyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubedContent may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: NationalGeographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO,NOAA, increment P Corp. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 11 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 3 ERO Resources Corporation Wetlands within the project area are dominated by common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens), redtop (Agrostis gigantean), Intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), mountain rush (Juncus balticus), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), Fuller’s teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), and common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris). Photos of the project area are included in Appendix A. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the soils in the project area as Hargreave fine sandy loam (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS 2017). Hargreave fine sandy loam soils occur in uplands. Streams, Wetlands, and Water Body Protection The City of Boulder’s wetland ordinance was amended and formally adopted in 2009. Streams, wetlands, and various water bodies are protected under the ordinance. The boundaries of streams include the bankfull width of the channel, and the boundaries of water bodies are defined by the presence of a bed and bank or ordinary highwater mark (OHWM). The City of Boulder defines wetlands based on procedures specified in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wetlands Delineation Manual (manual; Environmental Laboratory 1987). The manual defines wetlands as an area containing three wetland indicators (e.g., hydrophytic vegetation, supportive hydrology, and hydric soils). Additionally, the City of Boulder has established a 25- or 50-foot protected wetland buffer on either side of City of Boulder-regulated wetlands, depending on the location and functional rating of the wetlands. The City of Boulder regulates wetlands and wetland buffers on lands within the City of Boulder limits and on City of Boulder-owned land outside the city limits. On August 9, 2017, Leigh Rouse, Clint Henke, and Anica Sunshine, Ecologists with ERO, surveyed the project area for potential isolated wetlands, jurisdictional wetlands, and other waters of the U.S (2017 field survey). Prior to the 2017 field survey, ERO reviewed U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle topographic maps and aerial photography to identify mapped streams and areas of open water that could indicate wetlands or waters of the U.S. ERO conducted the wetland delineation following the methods for routine on-site wetland determinations in areas of less than 5 acres as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) (Environmental Laboratory 1987), and used methods in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010), to record data on vegetation, soils, and hydrology on routine determination forms. The Corps defines wetlands as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR 328.2©). Wetland boundaries were determined by a visible change in vegetation community, soils, topographic changes, and other visible distinctions between wetlands and uplands. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 12 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 4 ERO Resources Corporation The wetland indicator status of plant species was identified using the National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2013), taxonomy was determined using Flora of Colorado (Ackerfield 2015) and Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope (Weber and Wittmann 2012), and nomenclature was determined using the PLANTS Database (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS) 2014). If present, hydric soils were identified using field observation for hydric soil indicators accepted by the Corps. Soil data were not always collected if hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology was present and did not appear altered (Environmental Laboratory 1987). In addition, soil data were not collected in conditions where there was a clear lack of hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation indicators other than as a paired data point. Where soil data were collected, a Munsell soil color chart was used to determine soil color. Intermittent, ephemeral, and perennial drainages with characteristics of a defined streambed, streambank, ordinary highwater mark (OHWM), and other erosional features also were identified. The OHWM identifies the lateral jurisdictional limits of nonwetland waters of the U.S. Federal jurisdiction over nonwetland waters of the U.S. extends to the OHWM, defined in 33 CFR part 328.3 as the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. The Corps defines “stream bed” as the substrate of the stream channel between the OHWMs. The substrate may be bedrock or inorganic particles that range in size from clay to boulders. The boundaries of identified wetlands and other characteristics of a potential waters of the U.S were mapped using a Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Data were differentially corrected using the CompassCom base station. All differential correction was completed using Trimble Pathfinder Office 5.4 software. GPS data were incorporated using ESRI® ArcGIS Desktop software. Additionally, where appropriate, wetlands were drawn on georectified aerials and then digitized. Wetland Classification Delineated wetlands were classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) combined with a hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach (Brinson 1993). The HGM approach assesses the physical, chemical, and biological functions of wetlands based on its geomorphic setting, water source, and hydrodynamics. HGM classes found in Colorado are mineral soil flats, organic soil flats, riverine, lacustrine fringe, slope, and depressional. The Cowardin classification uses a hierarchical structure of systems, subsystems, and classes to classify both wetlands and deepwater habitats. Wetlands with persistent or nonpersistent vegetation are classified in the Cowardin system as palustrine, which typically includes wetlands referred to as marshes, fens, wet meadows, and sloughs. The palustrine system also includes small, shallow, permanent, or intermittent water bodies such as ponds. Palustrine wetlands may be situated shoreward of lakes and river channels, on river floodplains, in isolated catchments, or on slopes (Cowardin et al. 1979). Under the palustrine system, wetlands are classified as emergent (erect, rooted, herbaceous, and usually perennial ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 13 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 5 ERO Resources Corporation hydrophytes that remain standing until at least the next growing season); scrub-shrub (woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall); or forested (woody vegetation 20 feet or taller). In wetlands where more than one wetland type occurs, the wetland type of the largest area is used. For example, an area that is predominantly palustrine emergent (PEM) wetlands but also contains a small amount of palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetlands would be categorized as PEM wetlands. Because of the limited occurrence of the smaller sized wetland types within the larger wetland polygons, these areas were not separated out within the delineated polygons. The Cowardin riverine system includes wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, except for wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, and emergent vegetation. The riverine system usually contains flowing water and is bounded on the landward side by uplands, channel banks, or other wetlands. Within the riverine system, wetlands are divided into the tidal, lower perennial (low gradient and slow water), upper perennial (high gradient and fast water), and intermittent subsystems. Within these subsystems, riverine wetlands are further classified as unconsolidated bottom, aquatic bed, streambed, rocky shore, unconsolidated shore, and emergent wetland (nonpersistent). Wetlands Eight palustrine emergent wetlands were delineated within the project area (Table 1). Descriptions of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology for each wetland or group of similar wetlands is provided below. Wetlands within the project area are shown on Figure 2 through Figure 4. Photos of representative wetlands are in Appendix B and photo points are shown on Figure 5. Table 1. Wetland Area, Cowardin Classification, and HGM. Water/Wetland ID Longitude Latitude Feature Size (Acre) Cowardin Classification HGM Wetland 1a -105.207 39.975 1.352 PEM Depressional Wetland 1b -105.205 39.976 0.206 PEM Depressional Wetland 1c -105.204 39.977 0.459 PEM Depressional Wetland 2a -105.211 39.973 0.002 PEM Depressional Wetland 2b -105.211 39.973 0.005 PEM Depressional Wetland 3 -105.209 39.974 0.094 PEM Depressional Wetland 4 -105.209 39.974 0.003 PEM Depressional Wetland 5 -105.209 39.974 0.001 PEM Depressional Total Not applicable Not applicable 2.122 Not applicable Not applicable Wetlands 1a, 1b, and 1c Wetlands 1a, 1 b, and 1c are located north of U.S. Highway 36 along a stretch of the proposed water line alignment located northwest of the Marshallville Ditch (Figure 3). The Marshallville Ditch appears to connect to the Dry Creek Davidson Ditch, which connects to the Leyner Cottonwood Ditch. The Leyner Cottonwood Ditch appears to convey water from Dry Creek to Rock Creek, which have both been previously determined to be jurisdictional by the Corps. Since the Marshallville Ditch appears to indirectly connect to the Leyner Cottonwood Ditch, ERO assumes that the Marshallville Ditch is ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 14 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 6 ERO Resources Corporation jurisdictional. Wetland 1 is shown on Figures 2 and 3 as Wetland 1a, 1b, and 1c but it is a contiguous wetland that extends beyond the study area. Data for Wetland 1 were collected at data point (DP) 1, DP 2, DP 3, and DP 4. Vegetation Wetland 1a northwest of Marshallville Ditch is dominated by common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens, OBL) and redtop (Agrostis gigantean, FACW) at DP 1. At DP 3, Intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum, FACW), mountain rush (Juncus balticus, FACW), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata, FACW) are the dominants. Other vegetation observed include Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia, FACU), Woods’ rose (Rosa woodsia, FACU), showy milkweed (Asclepias speciose, FAC), witchgrass (Panicum capillare, FAC), sowthistle (Sonchus), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense, FACU), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii, FACU), lambsquarters (Chenopodium album, FACU), annual ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia, FACU), chicory (Cichorium intybus, FACU), clustered field sedge (Carex praegracilis, FACW), and narrowleaf trefoil (Lotus tenuis, FACU) . At DP 1 and DP3, the vegetation met the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. DP 2 and DP 4, two upland points, consisted primarily of upland species and did not meet the dominance test for hydrophytic vegetation. Soils Soil types in the project area had been identified by the NRCS Soil Surveys for Boulder County, Colorado. The NRCS mapped one primary soil association in the project area (USDA, NRCS 2017). Within both the northern and southern portions of the project area the soils were mapped as Hargreave fine sandy loam. Field observations revealed that soils primarily consisted of clay within 15 inches of the soil surface. At DP 1, the soils contained a matrix color of 10YR 3/2 with redox features of 2.5YR 3/6 and 5YR 4/6. At DP 1, soils met the redox dark surface hydric soil indicator. No hydric soil indicators were observed at DP 2. At DP 3, the soils contained a matrix color of 10YR 3/2 with a redox feature of 7.5YR 4/6. At DP 3, soils met the redox dark surface hydric soil indicator. No hydric soil indicators were observed at DP 4. Hydrology The primary hydrology indicator at DP 1 was oxidized rhizospheres on living roots. No hydrology indicators were met at DP 2. The primary hydrology indicator at DP 3 was hydrogen sulfide odor. The secondary hydrology indicator was the FAC-Neutral test. No hydrology indicators were observed at DP 4. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 15 of 72 MerryLaneMarshallville D it c h 36 SouthCherryvaleRoadWetland 3 (0.094 acre) Wetland 4 (0.003 acre) Wetland 2a (0.002 acre) Wetland 5 (0.001 acre) Wetland 2b (0.005 acre) DP 3 DP 6DP 5 Open Cutting Area (SW) Staging Area (SW) Access Area (SW) Marshallville Ditchimpact - 0.00761ac. Ditch 1impact - 0.00132ac. Wetland 1aimpact - 0.60207ac. Wetland Inner Bufferimpact - 0.1961ac. Wetland Outer Bufferimpact - 0.17225ac. Wetland Outer Bufferimpact - 0.13911ac. Wetland Inner Bufferimpact - 0.0684ac. Wetland 4impact - 0.00029ac. Wetland 2a & bimpact - 0.00645ac. Pre pare d fo r: City of Lafaye tte File: 6726 Figure 2-4 [2020]Boulde r.m xd [dlH ]Fe bruary 6, 2020 Figure 2Proiposed ImpactsMerry Lane Waterline Replacement 0 200100feet Data Point Limit of Wetland Delineation Limits of Disturbance Existing Water Line Ditch Ditch = 0.05 acre Wetland = 2.12 acres Wetland Inner Buffer = 1.19 acres Wetland Outer Buffer = 10.5 acres Ditch Impact = 0.02 acre Wetland Impact = 0.95 acre Wetland Inner Buffer Impact = 0.58 acre Wetland Outer Buffer Impact = 0.56 acrePath: P:\6700 Projects\6726 Lafayette Merry Lane T&E\Maps\City of Boulder Figures\6726 Figure 2-4 [2020]Boulder.mxdATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 16 of 72 36 MarshallvilleDitchWetland 1a (1.352 acres) Wetland 1b 0.206 acre Wetland 4 (0.003 acre) Wetland 2a (0.002 acre) Wetland 5 (0.001 acre) DP 4 DP 3 DP 2 DP 1 DP 6 Open Cutting Area (NE) Staging Area (NE) Marshallville Ditchimpact - 0.00761ac. Wetlandimpact - 0.23804ac. Wetland 1aimpact - 0.60207ac. Wetland 1bimpact - 0.09853ac. Wetland Inner Bufferimpact - 0.15053ac. Wetland Inner Bufferimpact - 0.0642ac. Wetland Outer Bufferimpact - 0.17225ac. Wetland Outer Bufferimpact - 0.06147ac. Wetland Outer Bufferimpact - 0.09804ac. Wetland Outer Bufferimpact - 0.08699ac. Wetland Inner Bufferimpact - 0.0684ac. Wetland Inner Bufferimpact - 0.09608ac. Wetland 4impact - 0.00029ac. Pre pare d fo r: City of Lafaye tte File: 6726 Figure 2-4 [2020]Boulde r.m xd [dlH ]Fe bruary 6, 2020 Figure 3Proiposed ImpactsMerry Lane Waterline Replacement 0 200100feet Data Point Limit of Wetland Delineation Limits of Disturbance Existing Water Line Ditch Ditch = 0.05 acre Wetland = 2.12 acres Wetland Inner Buffer = 1.19 acres Wetland Outer Buffer = 10.5 acres Ditch Impact = 0.02 acre Wetland Impact = 0.95 acre Wetland Inner Buffer Impact = 0.58 acre Wetland Outer Buffer Impact = 0.56 acrePath: P:\6700 Projects\6726 Lafayette Merry Lane T&E\Maps\City of Boulder Figures\6726 Figure 2-4 [2020]Boulder.mxdATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 17 of 72 M arshallvilleDitchWetland 1c (0.459 acre) Wetland 1b 0.206 acre Open Cutting Area (NE) Staging Area (NE) Access Area (NE) Marshallville Ditch Ditchimpact - 0.00579ac. Wetlandimpact - 0.23804ac. Wetland 1bimpact - 0.09853ac. Wetland Inner Bufferimpact - 0.15053ac. Wetland Inner Bufferimpact - 0.0642ac. Wetland Outer Bufferimpact - 0.06147ac. Wetland Outer Bufferimpact - 0.09804ac. Wetland Outer Bufferimpact - 0.08699ac. Wetland Inner Bufferimpact - 0.09608ac. Marshallville Ditch Ditchimpact - 0.00562ac. Pre pare d fo r: City of Lafaye tte File: 6726 Figure 2-4 [2020]Boulde r.m xd [dlH ]Fe bruary 6, 2020 Figure 4Proiposed ImpactsMerry Lane Waterline Replacement 0 200100feet Data Point Limit of Wetland Delineation Limits of Disturbance Existing Water Line Ditch Ditch = 0.05 acre Wetland = 2.12 acres Wetland Inner Buffer = 1.19 acres Wetland Outer Buffer = 10.5 acres Ditch Impact = 0.02 acre Wetland Impact = 0.95 acre Wetland Inner Buffer Impact = 0.58 acre Wetland Outer Buffer Impact = 0.56 acrePath: P:\6700 Projects\6726 Lafayette Merry Lane T&E\Maps\City of Boulder Figures\6726 Figure 2-4 [2020]Boulder.mxdATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 18 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 10 ERO Resources Corporation Wetland 2a and 2b Vegetation Palustrine emergent wetlands (Wetlands 2a and 2b) were delineated in the project area south of US Highway 36 (Figure 2). The wetlands are dominated by cattails, an obligate wetland species. Soils Soil types in the project area have been identified by the NRCS Soil Surveys as Hargreave fine sandy loam (USDA, NRCS 2017). Hydrology Presence of soil saturation indicated wetland hydrology. Wetland 3, 4, and 5 Ditch 1 occurs within the southern portion of the project area and flows into Wetland 3 (Figure 2). The ditch flows from south to north for about 750 feet parallel to Merry Lane before curving to the northeast where it appears to connect to the Marshallville Ditch. Since the ditch connects to the Marshallville Ditch, it is likely jurisdictional. Vegetation Wetland 3, a palustrine emergent wetland, occurs along both sides of Ditch 1 (Figure 2). Wetland 3 is dominated by sandbar willow (Salix exigua, FACW), Fuller’s teasel (Dipsacus fullonum, FACU), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera, FACW), and common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris, OBL). Other vegetation observed include scratchgrass (Muhlenbergia asperifolia, FACW), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum, FACW), and clustered field sedge (Carex praegracilis, FACW). Wetlands 4 and 5 are similar to Wetland 3. Soils Soil types in the project area had been identified by the NRCS Soil Surveys as Hargreave fine sandy loam (USDA, NRCS 2017). The hydric soil indicator at DP 5 was redox dark surface. Redox features of 40% were observed in 6 to 18 inches of the soil profile. Hydrology A hydrology indicator was observed at DP 5. It was assumed that Wetlands 3, 4, and 5 had surface water or saturated soil in spring based on the presence of obligate wetland species. The secondary wetland hydrology indicator was the FAC-Neutral test. No hydrology indicators were observed at DP 6, the paired upland data point. Other Waters Marshallville Ditch is shown as a canal ditch on the U.S. Geological Survey Louisville, Colorado topographic quadrangle. Within the project area, Marshallville Ditch consists of a 5-foot-wide channel. Marshallville Ditch flows into the South Boulder Canyon Ditch approximately 0.75 mile northeast of the ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 19 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 11 ERO Resources Corporation project area boundary. South Boulder Canyon Ditch eventually flows into Erie Lake. No other areas of open water were observed in the project area during the 2017 site visit. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species During the 2017 site visit, ERO assessed the project area for habitat for federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (Service) lists several threatened and endangered species with habitat in Boulder County or with potential to be affected by projects in Boulder County (Table 2). Because the project area falls within survey guidelines for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei or Preble’s), Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis or ULTO), and Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis or CBP), ERO assessed the project area for suitable habitat for these species. Table 2. Federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species potentially found in Boulder County or potentially affected by projects in Boulder County. Species (common name) Scientific Name Listing Status1 Habitat Habitat Present Birds Interior least tern Sterna antillarum athalassos2 E Sandy/pebble beaches on lakes, reservoirs, and rivers No habitat and no new depletions Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida3 T Closed canopy forests in steep canyons No Piping plover Charadrius melodus2 T Sandy lakeshore beaches and river sandbars No habitat and no new depletions Whooping crane Grus americana2 E Mudflats around reservoirs and in agricultural areas No habitat and no new depletions Mammals Canada lynx Lynx canadensis T Dense boreal forests with high density of snowshoe hares No North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus P Subalpine forests above 8,000 feet in elevation No Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei3 T Shrub riparian/wet meadows Yes Fish Bonytail Chub Gila elegans E Colorado River Basin No habitat and no new depletions Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus Lucius E Colorado River Basin No habitat and no new depletions Greenback cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias T Gravelly headwater streams or mountain lakes No Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus2 E Large, turbid, free-flowing rivers with a strong current and gravelly or sandy substrate No habitat and no new depletions Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus E Colorado River Basin No habitat and no new depletions ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 20 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 12 ERO Resources Corporation Species (common name) Scientific Name Listing Status1 Habitat Habitat Present Plants Colorado Butterfly Plant (CBP) Gaura neomexicana ssp. Coloradensis T Subirrigated alluvial soils on level floodplains and drainage bottoms between 5,000 and 6,400 feet in elevation No habitat Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (ULTO) Spiranthes diluvialis T Moist to wet alluvial meadows, floodplains of perennial streams, and around springs and lakes below 6,500 feet in elevation Potential Western prairie- fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara2 T Mesic and wet prairies, sedge meadows No habitat and no new depletions *T = Federally Threatened Species; E = Federally Endangered Species. **Water depletions in the South Platte River may affect the species and/or critical habitat in downstream reaches in other counties or states. Source: Service 2018. There is no likelihood for the proposed project to affect the Canada lynx, North American wolverine, Mexican spotted owl, greenback cutthroat trout, or Colorado butterfly plant because of the lack of habitat in the project area. The interior least tern, piping plover, whooping crane, bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, pallid sturgeon, razorback sucker, and western prairie fringed orchid are species that are affected by continued or ongoing water depletions to the Platte River system or Colorado River Basin. Habitat for these species is not present in the project area and the proposed activities would not result in new depletions to the Platte River system or Colorado River Basin. Water transmitted through this pipeline has already been consulted on with the Service during Lafayette’s 75th Street Raw Water Line project (FWS/R6 ES GJ-6-CO-02-F-010), Baseline Reservoir Northwest Dam Repair (Tails: 65412- 2011-F-0644) and the Gross Reservoir Environmental Pool Project (TAILS: 06E24000-2015-F-0985). The Service provided a Biological Opinion for these projects (Service 2002, 2011, 2016). Suitable habitat for Preble’s is present in the project area. The project area contains adequate sandbar willow cover and other riparian shrubs typically associated with Preble’s habitat. One trapping survey conducted in 2001 approximately 0.56 mile southwest of the project area successfully captured Preble’s (Meaney 2001). The nearest known population of Preble’s is located along Shearer Ditch, approximately 0.25 mile west of the project area (Bakeman 1997). The project area is close to Marshallville Ditch, Shearer Ditch, Davidson ditch and South Boulder Creek. ERO submitted a Biological Assessment to the Corps on January 9, 2018 as part of the pre-construction notification for the project. The Corps issued authorization for the project which included a Biological Opinion (BO) issued on June 19, 2018 by the Service (Appendix B). Populations of the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (ULTO) exist near the project area. The proposed project would have no effect on orchids within the project area. A ULTO survey report was submitted to the Service on October 31, 2017.). The Service’s response to the survey report is provided in Appendix C. The Service has not established formal survey guidelines for CBP but has indicated that areas similar to, and slightly drier than, ULTO habitat should be assessed. ERO determined that habitat for CBP does not ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 21 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 13 ERO Resources Corporation occur in the project area. The Service did not address the CBP in the BO based on ERO’s assessment that no habitat was present. The City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks has not documented CBP in the project area. CBP is not expected to be adversely affected by the proposed project. Description of Activities To provide domestic drinking water and to serve as a form of fire protection, Lafayette is proposing to replace an existing waterline. Open-trenches would be used to construct the pipeline through wetlands and three crossings on the Marshallville Ditch (Figure 2 through Figure 4). Total impacts on wetlands would be 0.946 acre. Temporarily impacted areas would be restored to preconstruction elevations. All access areas will be limited to areas outside of the wetland boundaries. Additionally, staging areas would be adjusted to minimize wetland impacts. Biodegradable wattles would be placed along the wetland boundaries to ensure that those wetlands are not disturbed by the activities within the staging areas. All wetlands would be mitigated in place. Public Need The existing pipeline is a potable water distribution pipeline that delivers water from the Lafayette system to customers located southwest of U.S. Highway 36. The primary purpose of the existing pipeline is to provide domestic drinking water and to serve as a form of fire protection. The existing pipeline is believed to be near the end of its service life. Since the existing pipeline is the only distribution pipeline to the area, there is no redundancy within the current water delivery system. The pipeline is constructed of steel, which is more susceptible to failure and has a shorter lifespan than other common potable water pipelines such as ductile iron or PVC. In recent years, Lafayette has documented several breaks along the existing pipeline. Based on the condition of the pipe observed when repairs were made, the pipeline exists in a deteriorated condition and needs to be replaced. Strong public need for the proposed project is apparent. Description of Impacts The proposed project would temporarily impact approximately 0.946 acre of wetlands (Table 3). Temporarily impacted areas would be restored to preconstruction elevations. Revegetation of disturbed areas with native seed would reestablish the functions and values of the project area. Two Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) trees (12 inches in diameter) and three additional Russian olives (2 inches in diameter) would also be removed along the southwest edge of the project area, directly east of Merry Lane (Table 3). These trees would be replaced with native tree species upon completion of the project. Mitigation measures and revegetation associated with the proposed project are incorporated into the design plan, which would improve the functions and values of the project areas. The functions of the wetlands and the Marshallville Ditch would return following restoration and revegetation. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 22 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 14 ERO Resources Corporation Table 3. Impacts on Trees Common Name Scientific Name Size DBH (inches) Quantity Status Russian Olive Elaeagnus angustifolia 12 2 Non-native Russian Olive Elaeagnus angustifolia <2 3 Non-native Total 5 Extent of Permanent Adverse Effects The proposed project would not result in permanent effects on wetlands. The proposed project would temporarily impact approximately 0.946 acre of wetlands, 0.575 acre of land within the wetland inner buffers, and 0.558 acre of land within the wetland outer buffers (Table 4). Table 4. Temporary Impact Acreage for Wetlands Water/Wetland ID Impact in Wetland (acre) Impact to Wetland Inner Buffer (acre) Impact to Wetland Outer Buffer (acre) Wetland 1a 0.602 0.151 0.098 Wetland 1b 0.099 0.096 0.087 Wetland 1c 0.238 0.064 0.062 Wetland 2a 0.002 0.196 0.139 Wetland 2b 0.005 Combined with Wetland 2a Combined with Wetland 2a Wetland 3 0.000 0 0 Wetland 4 0.000 0.068 0.172 Wetland 5 0.000 0 0 Total 0.946 0.575 0.558 Cumulative Effects The project area is within City of Boulder open space. Within the immediate project area, no additional reasonably foreseeable actions are known or anticipated. It is anticipated that land use in the project area would remain the same in the future. Uniqueness or Scarcity of Wetlands All wetlands in the Boulder Valley are valued, but the mapped wetlands that occur within the project area are not particularly unique or scarce. The dominant vegetation observed during the 2017 site visit consisted of upland and wetland herbaceous species. Marshallville Ditch contains riparian habitat along the ditch outside the project area. The riparian corridor within the project area contains species found in most riparian corridors associated with ditches in the Boulder Valley and Colorado. The project would reestablish vegetation cover. Alternatives Analysis Three alternatives were evaluated for the proposed project. These alternatives are: 1. No Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the pipeline would not be replaced. This alternative was rejected because it does not satisfy the project need. Under the no action ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 23 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 15 ERO Resources Corporation alternative, the water line would remain in its deteriorated state and the risk of breaks would remain high within the project reach. Under this alternative, public safety and existing infrastructure would be compromised. 2. Water Line construction outside of the current easement. Lafayette would construct a new segment of the pipeline outside of the current easement. The timing of construction would be delayed as Lafayette secured a new easement and the ground disturbance would be greater because the distance between the two connection points would be greater. Delaying construction by obtaining additional easements would put the public and the existing environment at risk from an unexpected pipeline break. 3. Water Line Replacement within existing easement (Preferred). Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative because it improves longer term water line stability and improves public safety. Under this alternative, wetlands would be mitigated in place. There would be more temporary effects on wetlands than the previous alternative, but the long-term effect would be similar because wetlands would be mitigated in place and are expected to return to a similar pre-construction condition within 2 to 4 years. Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland Impacts Efforts would be made to minimize impacts on the wetlands to the maximum extent possible; however, due to the primary purpose of the project (water line replacement within an existing easement), impacts on wetlands are unavoidable, although no City of Boulder-regulated wetlands would be impacted. Measures that would be implemented during construction to help minimize impacts on vegetation include limiting access areas to areas outside of the wetland boundaries, adjusting staging areas to minimize wetland impacts, and placing biodegradable wattles along the wetland boundaries to ensure that those wetlands are not disturbed by the activities within the staging areas. No areas outside of the project limits would be disturbed. All temporarily disturbed areas would be planted with native seed mixes and mulched. The proposed project would impact approximately 0.946 acre (41,208 square feet) of wetlands, 0.575 acre of land within the wetland inner buffers, and 0.558 acre of land within the wetland outer buffers. Temporarily impacted areas would be restored to preconstruction conditions. Construction Methods and Best Management Practices Disturbed uplands, Merry Lane, and other residential roads would be used for construction access and staging, which would minimize impacts on vegetation. Biodegradable wattles and construction fencing would be erected along the boundaries of the project area limits and straw wattles with stakes would be placed to prevent erosion. Construction fencing would be erected around woody vegetation that is not planned for removal. No areas outside of the project area limits would be disturbed and all equipment would be stored in uplands. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 24 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 16 ERO Resources Corporation Wetland Impacts and Mitigation No City of Boulder-regulated wetlands occur within the project area. About 0.946 acre (41,208 square feet) of wetlands that meet the definition specified in the Corps manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) occur within the project area and would be temporarily impacted (Figure 2 through Figure 4). The wetlands would be restored by seeding with native species in all disturbed areas and the uplands would be restored with a native upland seed mix. Table 5 and 6 shows the seed mix that would be applied to all disturbed areas. Table 5. Wetland Seed Mix. Common Name (Variety) Scientific Name Lb/ac (PLS)* Nebraska sedge Carex nebrascensis 0.5 Woolly sedge Carex pellita 0.5 Meadow sedge Carex praegracilis 0.4 Saltgrass Distichlis spicata 0.7 Mountain (Baltic) rush Juncus arcticus 0.02 Western wheatgrass (Arriba) Pascopyrum smithii 3 Nuttal alkali grass Puccinellia nuttalliana 0.2 Common threesquare Schoenoplectus pungens 1.2 Yellow Indiangrass (Boulder locally collected only) Sorghastrum nutans 2.5 Total 9.02 *PLS = Pure Live Seed; Lb/ac = pounds per acre. This mix is based on 75 seeds/square-foot and is only calculated for 1 acre. This mix is based on the contractor using a drill seed application. Contractor is responsible for calculating the appropriate seed amounts to purchase. Mix should be doubled if hand-broadcasted. All materials furnished shall be free of Colorado State noxious weeds. This seed mix may change based on Boulder OSMP input and preference for final mitigation. Table 6. Wetland Seed Mix. Common Name (Variety) Scientific Name Lb/ac (PLS)* Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis 0.6 Buffalo grass Bouteloua dactyloides 4.0 Green needlegrass Nasella viridula 1.0 Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides 2.0 Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula 2.0 Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii 3.6 Total 13.2 *PLS = Pure Live Seed; Lb/ac = pounds per acre. This mix is based on 75 seeds/square-foot and is only calculated for 1 acre. This mix is based on the contractor using a drill seed application. Contractor is responsible for calculating the appropriate seed amounts to purchase. Mix should be doubled if hand-broadcasted. All materials furnished shall be free of Colorado State noxious weeds. This seed mix may change based on Boulder OSMP input and preference for final mitigation. Ground water currently provides the supportive wetland hydrology and would continue to be the water source for wetlands after restoration. The restoration areas would be monitored for five years to ensure the wetland mitigation is successful. Site visits would be conducted at the end of each growing season to determine the success of the project. The site would be considered successful when at least 80 percent (determined by ocular estimate of herbaceous and shrub foliar cover) of the site is vegetated and at least 50 percent of the dominance species present shall have been planted species or are native. The presence of noxious weeds would be monitored. Those species shown on the Colorado Noxious Weed ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 25 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 17 ERO Resources Corporation Inventory List A shall be 100 percent eradicated. Those species shown on List B shall be no more than 5 percent of the total cover in the project area. If the cover of noxious weeds is greater than 5 percent, weed control would be implemented following the City’s Integrated Pest Management Policy. Dense monoculture patches of noxious weeds would be controlled as soon as practicable. Annual monitoring reports would be submitted to the City by September 1. The monitoring reports would include a discussion of weed colonization, a qualitative description of the mitigation area including establishment of native seed. Bare areas would be noted during monitoring. The potential revegetation of the bare areas would be assessed, and recommendations would be made in the annual monitoring reports. Weed species, population size, and extent would be noted, and weed management recommendations would be made. Permanent photo points would be established and supplied in the annual monitoring report. The annual monitoring report would include an evaluation of the status and progress of restoration and mitigation and any recommendations for remedial actions. References Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Britt Press. Bakeman, M. 1997. Trapping survey results submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for City of Boulder. Reference provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2017). Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report 7- 87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways. Experimental Station. Land Stewardship Consulting, Inc. 2004. City of Boulder Comprehensive Wetland Remapping Project. Prepared for Planning and Development Services, City of Boulder. Lichvar, R. W., Banks, D. L., Kirchner, W. N., & Melvin, N. C. 2013. The national wetland plant list: 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron, 49, 1-241. Meaney and Company. 2001. Trapping survey results submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Boulder Open Space. Reference provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2017). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014. The PLANTS Database. Available at: http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Team. Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Final Biological Opinion for the 75th Street Raw Water Line project. Letter from John A. Blankenship, Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Tim Carey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. July 14. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2011. TAILS: 65412-2011-F-0644. Final Biological Opinion for Baseline Reservoir Northwest Dam Repair. Letter from Susan Linner, Colorado Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Tim Carey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. November 3. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 26 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 18 ERO Resources Corporation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2016. TAILS: 06E24000-2015-F-0985. Final Biological Opinion for the Gross Reservoir Environmental Pool Project. Letter from Drue DeBerry, Colorado Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Kiel Downing, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. January 29. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2018. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Last accessed July 11, 2018. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 27 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix A Photo Log ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 28 of 72 MERRY LANE WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT PHOTO LOG JULY 26 AND AUGUST 9, 2017 Photo 1 ‐ Wetland 1a, east of U.S. 36, looking northwest. Photo 2 ‐ Wetland 1b, east of U.S. 36, looking north. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 29 of 72 MERRY LANE WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT PHOTO LOG JULY 26 AND AUGUST 9, 2017 Photo 3 ‐ Wetland 1c, near Marshallville Ditch, looking northeast. Photo 4 ‐ Wetland 3, south east of U.S. 36, looking northeast. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 30 of 72 MERRY LANE WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT PHOTO LOG JULY 26 AND AUGUST 9, 2017 Photo 5 ‐ Meadow on the southern end of the pipeline alignment near Merry Lane, looking north. Photo 6 ‐ Meadow southeast of U.S. 36, looking west. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 31 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix B Section 404 Permit and Biological Opinion ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 32 of 72 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Colorado Ecological Services IN REPLY REFER TO FWS/R6/ES CO Front Range: Western Slope: 445 W. Gunnison Avenue Suite 240 Post Office Box 25486 Mail Stop 65412 Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-5711 TAILS: 06E24000-2018-F-0890 Corps file number: NWO-2018-00118-DEN June 19, 2018 Angelle Greer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Denver Regulatory Office 9307 South Wadsworth Boulevard Littleton, Colorado 80128-6901 Dear Ms. Greer: In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Interagency Cooperative Regulations (50 CFR 402), this document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service's) final biological opinion on impacts to the federally threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) authorization of the Merry Lane waterline replacement in Boulder County, Colorado. We received your request for formal consultation on February 15, 2018. Critical habitat has not been designated in the project area; therefore, none will be affected. The City of Lafayette is proposing to replace an existing potable water distribution line located near the Marshallville Ditch. The replacement line will be constructed within the existing easement and tie into existing pipelines on the south and north sides. The primary purpose of the pipeline is to provide domestic drinking water and to serve as a form of fire protection. The existing pipeline is believed to have been constructed in the 1970s or 1980s and is near the end of its service life. It is constructed of steel, which is more susceptible to failure and has a shorter lifespan than other materials such as ductile iron or PVC. The pipeline is in a deteriorated condition and needs replacement. We base this biological opinion on the January 9, 2018, project description and biological assessment, as well as any subsequent clarifying correspondence. The biological assessment addresses the proposed project's potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. The Service agrees with your determination that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. No critical habitat has been designated in the project area; therefore, none will be affected. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 33 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page2 CONSULTATION HISTORY: On November 8, 2017, the Service received you survey report for the Ute ladies' -tresses orchid. You reported that no orchids were detected, that the site does not support the proper soils for the species, and that none had ever been observed in the area. On February 15, 2018, we received your biological assessment dated January 9, 2018. BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: The new water line will consist of approximately 1,400 feet of 10-inch PVC pipeline. The construction disturbance area will be 40 feet wide centered along the pipeline that extends from Merry Lane to US36 for approximately 350 feet of pipeline, then continues north ofUS36 for approximately 1,050 feet. One access area will be located along the northeastern corner of Merry Lane, and a staging area will be located just east of the access area. A second 200 feet x 50 feet staging area will be located north of US36, between Marshallville Ditch and the proposed pipeline. This second staging area will be located outside of the delineated wetland boundaries. Two other areas of potential access exist north ofUS36, adjacent to the project area. One area of potential access is located along an existing service road to an existing well site located just west of the project area . The other potential access point is located along Whaley Drive (a private drive), in the northeastern corner of the project area. The project is expected to take one to two months to complete. Conservation Measures Conservation measures are actions outlined in the project description that the project proponent will implement in order to reduce the environmental impacts of the action or promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species. The Service considers the beneficial effects of these conservation measures during the jeopardy and adverse modification analyses. Conservation measures are part of the proposed action and their implementation is required under the terms of this consultation. • Revegetating all temporarily disturbed areas with native seed mixes to reduce erosion. • Trimming willows within access areas to allow vehicle access, but does not include removal. • Installing sediment-and erosion-control devices, such as silt fence, to minimize surface runoff in disturbed areas. • Placing vehicle tracking control devices at the site entrance(s). • Locating equipment refueling and staging areas on inactive roads or upland areas away from wetlands and riparian areas. • Placing biodegradable erosion-control blankets on newly seeded steep slopes to control erosion and promote vegetation establishment. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 34 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 3 • Preble's mouse habitat in the project area would be restored by revegetating temporarily disturbed areas with native vegetation as described on page 22 of the biological assessment, increasing vegetation species richness and diversity, and enhancing habitat along the Marshallville Ditch. The following criteria would be used to assess the success of mitigation efforts. These minimum standards must be met for restoration to be considered successful and, hence, to be released from monitoring requirements: • For upland areas, the combined canopy cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs would be at least 80 percent cover of adjacent undisturbed reference areas. At least 50 percent of the canopy cover would consist of native perennial grasses and forbs. • State-listed noxious weeds would be controlled to prevent competition with the planted vegetation. Noxious weeds will not exceed 10 percent canopy cover in the revegetated areas with no List A species present. • Upland sites would be adequately stabilized to prevent gullying, severe erosion, and sedimentation. Areas of soil instability would be promptly treated ( e.g., riprap, silt fence, erosion matting, and hay bales) to prevent further site degradation beyond that found preconstruction. ACTION AREA: The action area is not only the immediate area involved in the action, but also includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action (50 CFR § 402.02). The action area contains the most far-reaching potential effects of the Federal and non-Federal actions on the species being discussed. The action area is defined by measurable or detectable changes in land, air, and water or to other measurable factors that will result from the proposed action. In other words, the action area is not limited to the "footprint" of the action, but rather encompasses the biotic, chemical, and physical impacts to the environment resulting directly or indirectly from the action. We describe the action area as including not only the project area, which is defined by the limits of the project's disturbance, but also downstream reaches of Marshallville Ditch. We include downstream reaches in order to evaluate the proposed project's potential secondary impacts from erosion, sedimentation, pollution, hydrologic changes, and fragmentation. We use 3.0 miles to conservatively define the action area's downstream limit along a drainage, based on the 2.3-mile (4.0-kilometer) maximum recorded dispersal distance for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. STATUS OF THE PREBLE'S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE: The Service added the Preble's meadow jumping mouse to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 50 CFR 17.11 as a threatened species on May 13, 1998 (63 FR 26517). As discussed in more detail under the Environmental Baseline section, previous trapping surveys and habitat evaluations confirm that the species occupies the action area. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 35 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page4 Taxonomy The Preble's meadow jumping mouse is a member of the family Dipodidae Gumping mice) with four living genera, two of which, Zapus and Napaeozapus, are found in North America (Hall 1981). The three living species within the genus Zapus are Z. hudsonius (the meadow jumping mouse), Z. princeps (the western jumping mouse), and Z. trinotatus (the Pacific jumping mouse). Edward A. Preble (1899) first documented the meadow jumping mouse from Colorado. Krutzsch (1954) described the Preble's as a separate subspecies of meadow jumping mouse limited to Colorado and Wyoming. Taxonomic authorities recognize the Preble's subspecies of meadow jumping as 1 of 12 subspecies of meadow jumping mouse (Hafner et al. 1981 ). A September 2013 publication in Molecular Ecology further evaluated the genetic relationship between jumping mice, including the Preble's (Malaney and Cook, 2013). This study broadly evaluated the entire Zapus genus, including all 12 subspecies of meadow jumping mice (Z. hudsonius) and confirmed that the Preble's is distinct from neighboring subspecies that were previously proposed to be taxonomically synonymized (Z. h. campestris and Z. h. intermedius) (Malaney and Cook, 2013, pp. 8, 10). However, the study concludes that Preble's is closely related to two meadow jumping mouse subspecies that are found in Alaska and Canada (Z. h. tenellus and Z. h. alascensis), which the study refers to as the "northern lineage" of meadow jumping mice (Malaney and Cook 2013, p. 8, 10). Although the study suggests that the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is genetically similar to two subspecies of jumping mice found in Alaska and Canada, it does not propose to revise the formal taxonomy of Preble's or any of the other subspecies of jumping mice (Malaney and Cook 2013, p. 10). Specifically, the study concludes, "additional tests will be required before hypotheses of infraspecific taxonomic synonymy can be implemented ... [and that] a revised taxonomy of the group is needed but is outside the context of this study" (Malaney and Cook, p. 10). Although the Preble's may be genetically similar to two other subspecies found more than 800 miles away in Alaska and Canada, the study confirms that the Preble's is genetically isolated from its nearest neighbors found in Wyoming and New Mexico (Malaney and Cook 2013, p. 10). Therefore, even if the Preble's were to be taxonomically synonymized into a "northern lineage," the Preble's appears to be both (1) distinct, due to the significant geographic separation from the two other subspecies of the "northern lineage" and (2) significant, because the loss of this southernmost population along the Front Range would represent a range retraction of more than seven latitudinal degrees to the north, likely resulting in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Therefore, the best available information continues to indicate that the Preble's is a valid subspecies of meadow jumping mice (SEI 2006a, p. 44). Physical Description The Preble's is a small mouse with an extremely long tail, large hind feet, and long hind legs, which enable jumping mice to make prodigious leaps (Figure 3). The long tail is bicolored, lightly furred, and twice as long as the body. The large hind feet are three times as large as those of other mice of similar body size. Preble's have a distinct, dark, broad stripe on its back that runs from head to tail and is bordered on either side by grey to rusty, orange-brown fur. The hair ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 36 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 5 on the back of all jumping mice appears coarse compared to other mice. White hairs on the underside are finer. Figure 3. The Preble's meadow jumping mouse, or Preble's, has an extremely long tail, large hind feet, and a distinctive dark stripe running along its back. Unlike deer mice or voles, the Preble's makes incredible jumps to escape predators. Left photo: The Preble's is in "torpor," or cold-induced hibernation/sleep. (USFWS) Adult Preble's are approximately 7 to 10 inches (18 to 25 centimeters) long and the tail is 4 to 6 inches (IO to 15 centimeters) long (Krutz sch 1954; Fitzgerald et. al. 1994; Fitzgerald et al. 2011). The average weight of 120 adult Preble's captured early in their active season prior to June 18 was 0.6 ounces (17 grams); included were IO pregnant females weighing more than 0.8 ounces (20 grams) (Meaney et al., 2002). Preble's meadow jumping mouse Life History Habitat Preble's meadow jumping mice live in well-developed, plains riparian vegetation with adjacent, relatively undisturbed grassland communities and a nearby water source (Figure 4). The well- developed, plains riparian vegetation typically includes a dense combination of grasses, forbs, and shrubs; a taller shrub and tree canopy may be present (Bakeman 1997). When a taller canopy is present, the shrub canopy is often willow (Salix spp.), although other shrub species, including snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), Gambel's oak (Quercus gambelli), alder (Alnus incana), river birch (Betula fontinalis), skunkbrush (Rhus trilobata), wild plum (Prunus americana), lead plant (Amorpha fruticosa), dogwood (Cornus sericea) and others may also occur (Bakeman 1997, Shenk and Eussen 1998). ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 37 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 6 Figure 4. Preble's habitats feature dense riparian vegetation, such as willows and cottonwoods, and adjacent grassy uplands within 300 feet of the 100-year floodplain, with an open water source nearby. (USFWS) Preble's have rarely been trapped in uplands adjacent to riparian areas (Dharman 2001; Hansen 2006). However, Preble' s feed and rest in adjacent uplands (Shenk and Sivert 1999b; Schorr 2001) as far out as 328 feet (100 meters) beyond the 100-year floodplain (Ryon 1999; Tanya Shenk-Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2002). Adjacent uplands used by the Preble's are extremely variable ranging from open grasslands to ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) woodlands (Corn et al. 1995; Pague and Grunau 2000). Riparian shrub cover, tree cover, and the amount of open water nearby are good predictors of Preble's densities (White and Shenk 2000). Based on habitat quality, estimates of Preble's abundance range from 6 to 110 mice per mile with an average of 53 mice per mile of stream (White and Shenk 2000). A comparison of habitats at capture locations on the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats Site in Jefferson County, Colorado, and the U.S. Air Force Academy (Academy) in El Paso County, Colorado, revealed that Academy sites had lower plant species richness at capture locations but considerably greater numbers of Preble's (Schorr 2001). However, the Academy sites also had higher densities of both grasses and shrubs. Preble's abundance is likely driven by the density of riparian vegetation rather than the diversity of plant species. During the active season, Preble's construct day nests composed of grasses, forbs, sedges, rushes, and other available plant material. Day nests may be globular in shape or simply raised mats of litter, and are most commonly above ground but may also be below ground. Day nests are typically located under debris at the base of shrubs and trees, or in open grasslands (Ryon ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 38 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 7 2001). Mice may have multiple day nests in both riparian and grassland communities (Shenk and Sivert 1999a), and may abandon a nest after approximately one week of use (Ryon 2001). Hydrologic regimes that support Preble's habitat range from large perennial rivers such as the South Platte River to small ephemeral drainages only 3 to 10 feet wide, as at Rocky Flats and in montane habitats at higher elevations. Flooding is a common and natural event in the riparian systems along the Front Range of Colorado. This periodic flooding helps create a dense vegetative community by stimulating sprouting from willow shrubs and the growth of herbs and grasses in freshly deposited soil. Hibernation: Preble's is a true hibernator, usually entering hibernation in September or October and emerging the following May, after a long hibernation period of seven to eight months. Adults enter hibernation first before than young of the year because they accumulate the necessary fat stores more quickly. Similar to other subspecies of meadow jumping mouse, Preble's do not store food for hibernation. Instead, while hibernating, the Preble's persists on fat stores accumulated prior to hibernation (Whitaker 1963). Hibernacula (hibernation nests) of Preble's have been located both within and outside of the 100- year floodplain of streams (Shenk and Sivert 1999a; Ryon 2001; Schorr 2001 ). Those hibernating outside of the 100-year floodplain would likely be less vulnerable to flood-related mortality. Fifteen apparent Preble's hibernacula have been located through radio telemetry, all within 260 feet of a perennial stream bed or intermittent tributary (Bakeman and Deans 1997; Shenk and Sivert 1999a; Schorr 2001 ). Hibernacula have been located under willow, chokecherry, snowberry, skunkbrush, sumac (Rhus spp.), clematis (Clematis spp.), cottonwoods (Populus spp.), Gamble's oak, thistle (Cirsium spp.), and alyssum (Alyssum spp.) (Shenk and Sivert 1999a). At the Air Force Academy near Colorado Springs, 4 of 6 likely hibernacula found by radio-telemetry were located in close proximity to coyote willow (Salix exigua) (Schorr 2001). The one excavated hibernaculum at Rocky Flats south of Boulder, was found 30 feet above the stream bed, in a dense patch of chokecherry and snowberry (Bakeman and Deans 1997). The nest was constructed of leaf litter 12 inches below the surface in coarse textured soil. Movements and Home Range: Radio telemetry and mark-recapture data provide insight into the Preble's home ranges and dispersal capabilities. At Plum Creek in Douglas County, Colorado, the Preble's home ranges averaged 1.24 acres (0 .50 hectares) based on radio-telemetry (Trainor et al. 2012, p. 432). In the Pike National Forest of Colorado, travel distances averaged 1,357 feet (413 .9 meters) with an approximate home range size of 1.02 acres (Hansen 2006, p. 158). At the Air Force Academy in El Paso County, Colorado, home ranges were between 0.42 to 9.49 acres (0.17 to 3.84 hectares), with an average home range of 3.48 acres (1.41 hectares) (Schorr 2003, p. 9). During this study, the farthest distance moved by individual Preble's ranged from 43 to 3,176 feet (13 to 968 meters), with an average maximum travel distance of 1,188 feet (362 meters) (Schorr 2003, p. 9). ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 39 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 8 An earlier study documented a Preble's moving as far as I.I kilometers (0.7 mile) in 24 hours (Ryon 1999, p. 12). However, compared to radio telemetry data, mark-recapture data suggest that the Preble's may have longer dispersal capabilities. Mark-recapture data between active seasons identified mice traveling more than 4 kilometers (2.3 miles) along a linear riparian system (Schorr 2003, p. 10; Schorr 2012b, pp. 1274, 1278). Reproduction and Lifespan: Preble's have two litters per year, but may have up to three litters per year. An average of five young is born, but the size of a litter can range from two to eight young (Quimby 1951; Whitaker 1963). Preble's are long-lived for a small mammal, surviving up to three years, in comparison with many species of mice and voles that seldom live a full year. Along South Boulder Creek, Boulder County, Colorado, seven individuals originally captured as adults were still alive two years later, having attained at least three years of age (Meaney et al., 2002). Although Preble's are long-lived compared to other small rodents, the annual survival rate is low. Preble's survival rates appear to be lower over the summer than over the winter. Over- summer survival rates ranged from 22 to 78 percent and over-winter survival rates ranged from 56 to 97 percent (Shenk and Sivert 1999b; Schorr 2001; Meaney et al. 2002). Higher overwintering survival rates indicate that predation or other factors impact Preble's during the active season. Predation: Known predators of the Preble's include garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.), prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus), bullfrog (Rana catesbiana), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), house cat (Felis catus), long-tailed weasel (Mustelafrenata), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) (Shenk and Sivert 1999a; Schorr 2001 ). Drowning and vehicle collisions also kill Preble's (Schorr 2001; Shenk and Sivert 1999a). Other causes of death include starvation, exposure, disease, and insufficient fat stores for hibernation (Whitaker 1963). Although fecal analyses provide the best data on Preble's diet, they overestimate the components of the diet that are less digestible. Preble's diets shift seasonally, consisting primarily of insects and fungi after emerging from hibernation, and shifting to fungi, moss, seeds, and pollen during mid-summer (July through August), with insects again added in September (Shenk and Sivert 1999a). The shift in diet along with shifts in mouse movements suggests that Preble's may require specific seasonal diets, perhaps related to the physiological constraints imposed by hibernation (Shenk and Sivert 1999a). Preble's Abundance and Trends Due to the d ifficulty of implementing long-term trapping studies needed to assess population sizes, quantitative studies designed to estimate Preble's populations have occurred at only a few sites in Colorado. As a result, we lack a reliable regional , Statewide, or rangewide population ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 40 of 72 Angelle Greer, M erry Lane water line replacement, PM JM, biological opinion Page 9 estimate for the Preble's. Without long-term trapping studies, our understanding of population densities is limited for the Preble's in Wyoming (WGFD 2005, p. 36; WGFD 2010, p. IV-2-66). In Colorado, we have several population estimates, but little trend information for Preble's populations. In addition, because jumping mouse population sizes in a given area vary significantly from year to year (Quimby 1951, pp. 91-93; Whitaker 1972, p. 4), short-term studies may not accurately characterize abundance. In one ongoing trapping study, population highs of 24 and 69 Preble's per site were estimated for two control sites in 1999; subsequent trapping in 2002, during regional drought conditions, found no Preble's at either site (Bakeman 2006, p. 11). Over 4 years, Preble's populations varied widely and were absent at certain sites during some seasons, suggesting that 10 or more years of study might be necessary to assess the full extent of variation in Preble's populations (Meaney et al. 2003, p. 620). Because the Preble's occupies linear riparian communities, researchers estimate abundance as the number of mice per kilometer ( or mile) of riparian corridor. Estimates of linear abundance range widely, from 2 to 67 mice per kilometer (3 to 107 mice per mile) with a mean of approximately 27 mice per kilometer (44 mice per mile) (Shenk 2004). These above abundance estimates, coupled with sufficient knowledge of occupied stream miles, may provide a rough indicator of Preble's numbers within a stream reach or drainage, but may overestimate actual population size (Hayward 2002). The Recovery Team used the 27 mice per km (44 mice per mi) population estimate (Shenk 2004) to approximate the number of stream miles required to support varying sized populations of the Preble's (USFWS 2003, p. 25). As with abundance estimates, the difficulty of implementing long-term trapping studies limits the availability of population trend data for the Preble's. Since 1998, there have been few attempts to characterize changes in Preble's populations over time. One long-term study at the Air Force Academy (Academy) in EI Paso County, Colorado, provides the most thorough estimate of population trends for the subspecies. Mark-recapture data over 7 years at the Academy suggested that populations were declining (Schorr 2012b, p. 1277). Preble's Status and Distribution The Preble's lives along the foothills in southeastern Wyoming, southward along the eastern edge of the Front Range of Colorado to Colorado Springs, EI Paso County (Hall 1981; Clark and Stromberg 1987; Fitzgerald et al. 1994; Fitzgerald et al. 2011). Knowledge about the current distribution of the Preble's comes from collected specimens, and live-trapping locations from both rangewide survey efforts and numerous site-specific survey efforts conducted in Wyoming and Colorado since the mid-I 990s. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science (DMNS) houses recently collected specimens. Trappers file survey reports with the Service's Field Offices in Colorado and Wyoming. In Wyoming, capture locations of mice confirmed as the Preble's, and locations of mice identified in the field as Preble's and released, extend in a band from the town of Douglas southward along the Laramie Range to the Colorado border, with captures east to eastern Platte County and Cheyenne, Laramie County. The Preble's does not likely extend west past the crest of the Laramie Range in Wyoming (Bowe and Beauvais 2012). In Colorado, the distribution of the Preble's forms a band along the Front Range from Wyoming southward to Colorado Springs, ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 41 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 10 El Paso County, with eastern marginal captures in western Weld County, western Elbert County, and north-central El Paso County. The Preble's is likely an Ice Age relict (Hafner et al. 1981; Fitzgerald et al. 1994; Fitzgerald et al. 2011). Once the glaciers receded from the Front Range of Colorado and the foothills of Wyoming and the climate became drier, the Preble's was confined to the riparian (river) systems where moisture was more plentiful. The semi-arid climate in southeastern Wyoming and eastern Colorado limits the eastern extent ofriparian corridors and restricts the range of the Preble's. The Preble's has not been found east of Cheyenne in Wyoming or on the extreme eastern plains in Colorado. The dry shortgrass prairie defines the eastern boundary for the subspecies and may present a barrier to eastward expansion (Beauvais 2001). Higher elevations along the Laramie Range and the Front Range likely impose the western boundary of the Preble's. The Service has used 2,300 meters (7,600 feet) in elevation as the general upward limit of Preble's habitat in Colorado (USFWS 1998). Recent morphological examination of specimens has confirmed Preble's to an elevation of approximately 7,600 feet in Colorado (Meaney et al. 2001) and to 7,750 feet in southeastern Wyoming (DMNS, 2001). In a modeling study of habitat associations in Wyoming, Keinath (2001) found suitable habitat predicted in the Laramie Basin and Snowy Range Mountains (west of known Preble's captures) but very little suitable habitat predicted on the plains of Goshen, Niobrara, and eastern Laramie counties (east of known Preble's captures). The Preble's is closely associated with riparian ecosystems that are linear in nature and represent a small percentage of the landscape. If Preble's habitat is destroyed or modified, populations in those areas may decline or be extirpated. The main factor threatening the subspecies is the decline in the extent and quality of Preble's habitat (USFWS 1998; Hafner et al. 1998; Shenk 1998). Habitat alteration, degradation, loss, and fragmentation resulting from urban development, flood control, water development, intensive agricultural activities, and other human land uses have adversely affected Preble's populations. Habitat destruction may impact individual Preble's directly or by destroying nest sites, food resources, and hibernation sites, by disrupting behavior, fragmenting habitats, or by creating a barrier to movement. Although there is little information on historic distribution and abundance of the Preble's, surveys identified various locations where the subspecies was historically present but is now absent (Ryon I 996). Despite numerous surveys, the Preble's has not recently been found in the Denver or Colorado Springs metropolitan areas and is believed to be extirpated from these areas because of extensive .urban development. Since at least 1991, the Preble's has not been found in Denver, Adams, or Arapahoe Counties in Colorado. Its absence in these counties is likely due to urban development, which has altered, reduced, or eliminated riparian habitat (Compton and Hugie 1993; Ryon 1996). Preble's Occupied Range in Colorado: A map layer, "Preble's occupied range," developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW 2007) estimates the acres of habitats occupied by the Preble's in Colorado. CPW developed this occupied range layer by drawing habitat polygons around points where trappers have captured ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 42 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 11 Preble's. Based on the trapping records, CPW estimated that Colorado supports approximately 89,771.7 acres (36,329.3 hectares) of occupied Preble's habitats. However, CPW's mapping effort underestimates the actual acres of potentially occupied habitats in Colorado because it incorporates only trapped habitats. The point data used to draw the occupied range polygons records only Preble's captures, but trappers have not trapped all the potential or likely occupied Preble's habitats in Colorado. Although CPW's occupied range map is an estimate, it is the best available estimate of acres of occupied habitat for the Preble's in Colorado. The layer overestimates potential habitats elsewhere, by including areas of non- habitat Threats to the Preble's Below we summarize threats to the Preble's. Our most recent 12-month status review for the Preble's published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2013, provides more detail and analysis regarding threats (78 FR 31679; https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-12387). Agricultural Land Conversions: Conversion of native riparian ecosystems to commercial croplands and grazed rangelands was identified as the major threat to the Preble's in Wyoming (Clark and Stromberg 1987; Compton and Hugie 1993). Certain grazing and haying management scenarios maintain what appears to be good habitat for the Preble's. However, intensive grazing and haying operations may negatively impact Preble's by removing food and shelter. While some Preble's populations coexist with livestock operations, overgrazing can decimate riparian communities on which the subspecies depends. Similarly, haying operations and the associated water development that allow significant riparian vegetation to remain in place appear to be compatible with persistence of Preble's populations. In fact, large populations of Preble's occur in grazed and hayed areas along Cottonwood Creek, Chugwater Creek, and Horse Creek in Wyoming. Recreational Trails: Recreational trail systems frequently parallel or intersect riparian communities and thus are common throughout Preble's. Trail development can alter natural communities and may impact the Preble 's meadow jumping mouse by: Modifying nest sites, food resources, and hibernation sites; fragmenting habitat; and increasing predation. Humans and pets using these trails may alter behavior patterns of Preble's and cause a decrease in survival and reproductive success. Habitat Fragmentation : Habitat fragmentation limits the range and abundance of the Preble's. In general, as animal populations become more fragmented and isolated, it becomes more difficult for them to persist. Small, isolated patches of habitat are unable to support as many Preble's as larger patches of habitat . When threats to persistence are similar, larger populations are more secure from extirpation than smaller ones. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 43 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 12 Hydrologic Changes: Hydrology of a waterway influences the structure and function of the corresponding riparian ecosystems. Water development and management may facilitate development of lush riparian vegetation by maintaining more moisture in the riparian areas for longer periods, particularly during drought. However, changes in timing and abundance of water may also alter the channel structure, riparian vegetation, and the adjacent floodplain, which may be detrimental to the persistence of Preble's. Increased development and impervious surface within a drainage can result in more frequent and severe flood events and prevent the maintenance of riparian communities. Bank stabilization, channelization, and other measures to address flooding and storm water runoff have increased the rate of stream flow, straightened riparian channels, and narrowed riparian areas (Pague and Grunau 2000). Riprap and other stabilization structures designed to reduce erosion can destroy riparian vegetation, while preventing or prolonging its reestablishment. Erosion control measures can adversely alter the hydrologic processes and riparian plant communities such that Preble's populations can no longer persist. Aggregate mining: Alluvial aggregate extraction may produce long-term changes to Preble's habitat by altering hydrology and removing riparian vegetation. Extraction removes and often precludes reestablishment of habitat components required by the Preble's, such as vegetation for feeding and sheltering and deposits of alluvial sands and gravels that may be important hibernation locations for hibernation. Transportation Corridors: Transportation and utility corridors frequently cross Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat and may negatively affect populations. Road construction and maintenance degrades, destroys, and fragments Preble's habitats. Roads and bridges also may act as barriers to dispersal. Accidents within or near riparian areas may spill chemicals, fuels and other substances into wetlands and waterways that may impact the Preble's and its habitat. Sewer, water, communications, gas, and electric lines cross Preble's and contribute to habitat disturbance and fragmentation through new construction and periodic maintenance. Impacts related to construction are often temporary if adequate rehabilitation and reclamation actions are implemented. Noxious weeds: Invasive, noxious plants can encroach upon a landscape and displace native plant species. This change reduces the abundance and diversity of native plants, and may negatively impact cover and food sources for Preble's. The control of noxious weeds may also impact Preble's where large-scale removal of vegetation occurs through chemical treatments and mechanical mowing operations. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 44 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 13 Pesticides and Herbicides: Pesticides and herbicides are used within the range of the Preble's. Inappropriate use of these chemicals may harm the Preble's directly or when ingested with food or water. Overall, an integrated pest management approach (use of biological, chemical, and mechanical control) may help reduce the threat of chemicals, but allow for the control of target species. Floods: Floods occur throughout the Preble's range in the Wyoming and Colorado foothills and plains. Preble's and their streamside habitats evolved under historic flood regimes, so populations and habitats naturally respond to floods. While floods may affect Preble's populations by killing individuals and destroying riparian and adjacent upland habitats, the effects to vegetation are usually temporary. Vegetation typically reestablishes quickly after floods, although larger floods may delay recovery. Routine flooding may help maintain the vegetative communities that provide suitable habitat for the Preble's. Preble's that hibernate outside the 100-year floodplain are less likely to drown in a flood. However, manmade increases in impervious surfaces and the loss of vegetation caused by human activities or catastrophic wildfire can result in an increased frequency and severity of flood events. Flooding is often a byproduct of wildfires and may act synergistically to alter the composition and structure ofriparian ecosystems for many years (Ellis 2001, p. 159). Therefore, extreme floods may prevent the re-establishment of the Preble's favored riparian vegetation, forcing mice to disperse until habitats recover. Although an extreme flood can eliminate an entire Preble's population in an affected stream reach, floods are less likely to eliminate the Preble's from an entire drainage system if populations extend into side tributaries or headwaters unaffected by the flood. Therefore, maintaining the connectivity of riparian habitats between stream reaches is crucial to maintaining the security of Preble's populations faced with an increased incidence of flooding. In September 2013, heavy rains in Colorado flooded streams and inundated many riparian and upland habitats occupied by the Preble's in Larimer, El Paso, Boulder, and Weld Counties. By drowning Preble's, scouring vegetation, removing topsoil, and depositing debris, early estimates suggest that the flood disaster affected approximately 60 percent of the Preble's occupied range and approximately 70 percent of its designated critical habitat in Colorado. Many Preble's may have drowned where the flash floods were large, unpredictable, or destructive. Throughout the flood disaster zone, especially in more mountainous (montane) habitats of the Front Range foothills, the flash floods completely inundated the Preble's habitats, with the fast moving floodwaters often extending far beyond the limits of the floodplain. Many Preble's in these high intensity flash flood areas may not have been able to escape the floodwaters and washed downstream or drowned. Preble's densities were low before the flood disaster, especially in the montane habitats at the westernmost extent of the Preble's range, so the floods may have significantly reduced rangewide population numbers. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 45 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 14 Trapping surveys, habitat evaluations, and remote imagery will be necessary to gauge the full effect of the flood disaster on the Preble's. Although population and habitat losses were likely significant across approximately 60 percent of the Preble's occupied range, some Preble's may have survived. Survivors will be critical to the Preble's recovery in the flood disaster zone. Wildfire: Fire, particularly catastrophic fires, can alter habitat dramatically and change the structure and composition of the vegetation communities such that the Preble's may no longer persist. In addition, precipitation falling in a burned area may degrade Preble's habitat by causing greater levels of erosion and sedimentation. Controlled use of fire may be one method to maintain appropriate riparian, floodplain, and upland vegetation within Preble's habitat. However, over the past several decades, as human presence has increased throughout the Preble's range, significant effort has been made to suppress fires. Long periods of fire suppression may result in a build-up of fuel and result in a catastrophic fire that significantly impacts Preble's habitats by burning vegetation or increasing catastrophic floods. Predation: The increasing presence of humans near Preble's habitats may result in increased level of predation that may pose a threat to the mouse . The striped skunk (M ephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), red fox, and the domestic and feral cat are found in greater densities in and around areas of human activity; all four of these species feed oppo rtunistically on small mammals. Introduction of species such as the bullfrog into waters within the Preble' s range may result in additional predation. The fact that summer mortality is h igher than overwinter mortality underscores the impact that predators can have on Preble's. Climate Change: Climate change may negatively affect the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and its habitat, primarily by causing changes in stream flows resulting in reduced quality and quantity of riparian habitats. Trends of warming in the mountains of western North America could decrease snowpack, hasten spring runoff, and reduce summer flows (IPCC 2007a). While fewer cold days and nights could result in increased plant biomass yield in colder environments, increased summer heat may increase the frequency and intensity of wildfires, decrease the productivity of riparian vegetation, and increase the frequency and duration of droughts (IPCC 2007a). Stream- flow reductions or seasonal changes in flow due to climate change will probably cause a greater disruption in those watersheds with a high level of human development (Hurd et al. 1999) where human demands for water resources are greatest. ENVIRONMENT AL BASELINE: The environmental baseline is the past and present effects of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated effects of all proposed Federal actions in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the effects of State or private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in progress . ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 46 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 15 The project area is located on City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks and is bounded by light residential development on the south and open land to the east, west, and north. The project area consists primarily of undeveloped land and extends from Merry Lane on the south, crosses under US36 and continues through open space to the Marshallville Ditch on the northern end. A residential area occurs along Merry Lane in the southern portion of the project area and a smaller residential site borders the northeast comer of the project area. Informal trails parallel the ditch along much of its length and some reaches come into close proximity with residential back yards. Vegetation within the project area is primarily composed of big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens), redtop (Agrostis stolinifera), witchgrass (Panicum capillare), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota), intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), foxtail barley (Hordeumjubatum), mountain rush (Juncus arcticus), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Where wetlands have been able to form, sandbar willow (Salix exigua), common threesquare, and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) are prominent. The Marshallville Ditch low-flow channel is considered habitat since it contains high quality vegetation. Status of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse within the Proposed Project and Action Areas The project area is within known occupied habitat for the species and historic trapping efforts have documented the species adjacent to the project area in 1997 and 2001. Overall, the habitat in and around most of the project area is suitable; therefore, we presume that the species occurs in appropriate habitats throughout the project corridor. At this time, we lack a concise population estimate (mice per acre or mice per stream mile) for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse in the project area; therefore, we will rely on trapping data collected over 21,174 trap-nights between July 1997 and June 2000 on South Boulder Creek and the nearby East Boulder and Enterprise ditches. These areas were found to be capable of supporting an average of approximately 64 mice per stream-mile or 0.46 -1.6 mice per acre. Given the proximity of the study site to the project site, we think that this provides a reasonable foundation for a population estimate at the project site. Given that the project location supports a narrower floodplain than the study site, using the estimate of 0.46 mice per acre is reasonable. Based on this estimate, the 3.31-acre impact area may support 2 Preble's meadow jumping mice. The action area includes downstream reaches of Marshallville Ditch for approximately 3 miles. Using the density of 64 mice per stream-mile, the action area potentially supports a population of approximately 192 Preble' s meadow jumping mice. However, this estimate assumes that the species is evenly distributed throughout the riparian and upland habitats and that all habitats are high quality. We know that this assumption produces an estimate of mice that is likely higher than the actual number, but this estimate is reasonable and we have no information that would allow for a more accurate number. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 47 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 16 Regulatory Actions under the ESA Completed by the Service for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse Since listing the Preble's meadow jumping mouse in May 1998, we have conducted 191 formal consultations pursuant to section 7 of the ESA and issued 22 incidental take permits pursuant to section l0(a)(l)(B) of the ESA for the Preble's in Colorado. In Wyoming, we have completed 13 formal consultations under section 7 of the ESA, but have not issued any incidental take permits under section l0(a)(l)(B) of the ESA. Table 1 below summarizes the acres of habitat lost in Colorado and Wyoming through actions consulted on under section 7 of the Act, which currently accounts for approximately 4.3 percent of CPW's occupied range for Colorado. These consultations occurred on a variety of actions, including residential and commercial developments, transportation projects, recreational facilities, and water supply projects. Table 1. Total acres of permanent and temporary Preble's mouse habitat loss analyzed by the Servi c e under the ESA between May 1998 and May 2018, in Colorado and Wyoming. All Preble's mice associated with this habitat are considered to be taken. We assume that habitat lost temporarily will return to functionality within 3 to 5 years; therefore, we expect that some of the temporarily lost acres depicted below have returned to function as suitable habitat. * The total acres of permanent and temporary habitat loss analyzed under section 10 does not include the Livermore Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in Larimer County, Colorado, completed in January 2004, which analyzed up to 3,357 acres of permanent habitat loss. As of March 2015, there are no enrollments in the Livermore HCP and we have not completed any section l 0 consultations in Wyoming. t Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) created their occupied range data layer for the Preble's mouse by buffering upstream and downstream habitats around positive capture locations, thereby estimating that there are 89,771.7 acres of occupied Preble's mouse range in Colorado. We lack a similar estimate for Wyoming, so we use the estimate for Colorado as a conservative rangewide estimate. t Project proponents completely restore, and often enhance, habitats that they temporarily impact. Regulatory Authority Number of Permanent Temporary ofthe I Exemptions or Loss Losst ESA Permits (acres) (acres) Colorado Wyoming Colorado Wyoming Colorado Wyoming Section 7 191 13 854.76 70.97 2,157.65 42 .69 (Federal consultations) Section 10 22 0 426 .3 * 0 270 * 0 (non-Federal consultations) STATE TOTALS = 213 13 1,281.06* 70 .97 2,427.65* 42.69 RANGEWIDE TOT AL = 226 1,352.03* 2,470.34* Percent of Preble's 1.51% 2.75% Occupied Range (CPW Iayert) in Colorado 4.3% Factors Affecting the Environment of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse within the Action Area Open space lands through the project area have been grazed or cut for hay, and residential developments have degraded and altered habitats through intentional and inadvertent ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 48 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 17 introduction of non-native and invasive plant and animal species, fragmentation, and increased human presence. The ditch itself is a manmade feature that provides incidental habitat for the species. Movement through the area may be limited by bridges and US36. Climate Change Because of the short duration of the proposed project, we do not think that climate change will affect the species. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION The project is expected to affect 3.31 acres of Preble's mouse habitat, all of which are temporary, as shown below. Most of these impacts are in upland grassland habitats that are likely used by the species primarily for foraging, day-nesting, and some dispersal. Habitat Type Open cutting Staging Areas Access Areas Total (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) w etland 0.94 0.004 0.0 0.94 upland grassland 1.88 0.44 0.03 2.35 ditches 0.02 0.001 0.0 0.02 Total 2.84 0.44 0.03 3.31 Impacts will result from open cutting for the water line installation, and from staging and access for construction equipment. No new habitat fragmentation is expected. Effects to the Preble's meadow jumping mouse Although the project area will be revegetated following construction, until the vegetation reaches maturity, there will be a reduction in the quality of Preble's mouse habitat in the project area, which will temporarily reduce the ability of the project area to support the species. Impacts due to temporary habitat loss may result in disruption of normal dispersal, foraging, breeding, and hibernation activities as well as reduced productivity while vegetation in temporarily affected areas recovers. Increased exposure to predation and weather may result from loss of vegetation and lead to death, increased energy expenditure for foraging or escaping predation, and subsequent decrease in productivity and survival. After revegetation, the site is expected to support habitat as good as before the project. In addition, death to individuals due to crushing by machinery and workers may occur. Ongoing indirect adverse effects on the Preble's mouse and its habitat may occur from occasional maintenance or repair of the pipeline which would occur mainly during daylight ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 49 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 18 hours. Although maintenance will occur infrequently, vehicle or equipment access may be necessary in areas near the water line. Noise associated with surrounding development and occasional maintenance may disrupt Preble's mouse behavior or patterns of use of the project area. Using the methodology provided above in the Status of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse within the Proposed Project and Action Areas section, we anticipate that up to 2 Preble's meadow jumping mice could be taken by completion of the project. Given the amount and type of habitat, we believe that this is a reasonable estimate. Cu mulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Residential and commercial development and recreation are not expected to change within the project area because most of the area is owned by the City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks. Surrounding lands along US36 could be developed, however. In addition, weeds are controlled. CONCLUSION: The Service defines "jeopardize the continued existence of'' as to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (50 CFR § 402.02). Recovery calls for improvement in the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria identified in section 4(a)(l) of the ESA (50 CFR § 402.02). After reviewing the current status of the affected species, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Preble's mouse. We base our conclusion on the following: • The impact area constitutes a small portion of the species' occupied range, approximately 0.004 percent. Although take of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse from project construction is likely, the anticipated level is small in proportion to the size of the population as a whole. • Because all impacts are temporary and connectivity along Marshallville Ditch will be maintained, the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse will not be appreciably reduced through implementation of the proposed action. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 50 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 19 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened animals, respectively, without special exemption. Take is to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. The Service defines harm as an "act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering." The Service defines "harass" as "an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering." Incidental take is defined as "takings that result from, but are not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the Federal agency or applicant." Under the terms of section 7(b )( 4) and section 7( o )(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement. The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the Corps so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions, or (2) fails to require the applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the applicant must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species or subspecies to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement. [50 CFR § 402.14(i)(3)] AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE: The Service anticipates that project completion will result in incidental take of no more than 2 individual mice, as measured by the surrogate of the temporary loss of 3 .31 acres of Preble' s meadow jumping mouse habitats. This take will be difficult to detect because of the species' small size, solitary nature, and hibernation underground. However, we estimate the amount of take by considering incidental mortality to individuals from crushing or burial; reduced productivity from the disruption of normal dispersal, foraging, breeding, and hibernation activities; and increased exposure to weather and predators from the loss of cover. In the above biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species. Reasonable and Prudent Measures The reasonable and prudent measures, and implementing terms and conditions, minimize the effects of incidental take that might otherwise result from the action. In addition to the Conservation Measures already proposed as part of the project description, the Service believes ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 51 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 20 that the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse: I. The Corps will monitor the extent of habitat impacted to ensure that it does not exceed the authorized area or the authorized take limits. 2. The Corps will monitor all aspects of restoration to assure its completion and success. 3. The Corps will ensure that best management practices and conservation measures designed to minimize take are implemented and successful. Terms and Conditions In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Corps must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring. These terms and conditions are non- discretionary. The following terms and conditions implement the reasonable and prudent measures: I. The Corps shall ensure that proposed conservation measures (outlined above and in the biological assessment), are formally adopted and implemented. 2 . The Corps or their agent will designate a qualified environmental manager or management team to be onsite to inform workers of permit conditions, monitor construction, and assure that habitat avoidance and conservation measures are implemented. 3. The Corps will ensure that implementation of Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat restoration will be supervised by a qualified ecologist experienced in habitat restoration. This includes implementation of an approved integrated weed management plan. 4. The Corps will include as a binding condition of project approval that the applicant will conduct annual monitoring of onsite revegetation efforts and noxious weeds. Monitoring will extend for at least three growing seasons ( or until such time as the Corps and the Service determine that proposed revegetation has been successfully completed). 5. In the unlikely event that a Preble's meadow jumping mouse is encountered (dead, injured, or hibernating) during construction activities, the Colorado Field Office of the Service shall be contacted immediately at 303 236-4773. The Service believes that the proposed action will adversely affect no more than 3.31 acres of Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat, resulting in incidental take of no more than 2 Preble's meadow jumping mice. The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 52 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 21 If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Corps must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the increased level of taking and review with the Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS: Section 7(a)(l) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. • We have no conservation recommendations at this time. REINITIATION NOTICE: This concludes formal consultation on proposed Federal actions related to replacing the Merry Lane water line near Boulder, Boulder County, Colorado. "Reinitiation of formal consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the Service, where discretionary Federal involvement or control over the action has been retained or is authorized by law and: (a) If the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (b) If new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; ( c) If the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (d) If a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action." At any time, if incidental take exceeds the take authorized by this biological opinion, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. If the Service can be of any additional assistance, please contact Alison Deans Michael of the Colorado Field Office by telephone at (303) 236-4758 or by email to alison_michael@fws.gov. Sincerely, Digitally signed by DRUE DRUE DEBERRY DEBERRY Date: 201 B.06.19 14:47:08 -06'00' Drue L. DeBerry Colorado and Nebraska Field Offices Supervisor ec: Michael Alison\H:\My Documents\Other Consultations\USACE _Merry_ Lane\Merry _Lane_ water _line _PMJM_ BO .do cx ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 53 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 22 LITERATURE CITED Bakeman, M.E. 1997. Conclusions and recommendations from the report on habitat findings of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 13 pp.+ tables and figures. Bakeman, M.E. and A. Deans. 1997. Habitat of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse at Rocky Flats, Colorado. Pp. 19-35 in Report on habitat findings on the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (ed. M. Bakeman). Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 91 pp. Bakeman, M.E . 2006. 2005 Preble's meadow jumping mouse abundance and survival at the East Plum Creek Conservation Bank, Douglas County, Colorado. Unpublished report for the Colorado Department of Transportation. 15 pp. Beauvais, G.P. 2001. Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Wyoming: Status report, July 2001. Unpublished report of the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 13 pp. Bowe, A. and G.P. Beauvais. 2012. An assessment of species and subspecies of Zapus in Wyoming. Report prepared for the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service -Wyoming Field Office by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database -University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Clark, T.W. and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. M ammals m Wyoming. University of Kansas Museum, Lawrence, Kansas. 314 pp. CNHP. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2007 . Annual monitoring report for the Upper South Platte Watershed Restoration Project's Pawnee montane skipper surveys. Submitted to the Pike National Forest. Compton, S.A. and R.D. Hugie. 1993. Status report on Zapus hudsonius preblei, a candidate endangered species. Pioneer Environmental Services, Inc. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Logan, Utah. 32 pp. Corn, J.G., C.A. Pague, A.R. Ellingson, M. Shennan, T. Zwiejacz, G. Kittel, and C. Fleming. 1995. Final report on the geographic extent of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse population on the United States Air Force Academy. Presented to the U.S . Air Force Academy. 44 pp. CPW. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2007. ArcGIS Shapefile: Occupied range for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse in Colorado. File Name: pjm_ndis030907. Downloaded from http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/ on October 30, 2010 . Dharman, A.T . 2001. Movement patterns of Preble 's meadow jumping mouse. M.S. Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 54 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 23 Ensight Technical Services, Inc. 1999. Report on Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Movement Assessment at Dirty Woman and Monument Creeks, El Paso County, CO. Submitted to Colorado Department of Transportation, Region 2. Fertig, W. 1994. Guide to Sensitive Wyoming Plants of US Forest Service Region 2 (with emphasis on plants of Bighorn, Medicine Bow, and Shoshone National Forests).Unpublished report prepared as a handout for the T&E species identification workshop conducted for US Forest Service Region 2 in Laramie,WY, 11 May 1994. Fertig, W. 2000. Rare vascular plant species in the Wyoming portion of the Utah-Wyoming Rocky Mountains Eco-region. Prepared for the Wyoming Nature Conservancy by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. Fertig, W., R. Black and P. Wolken. 2005. Range-wide Status Review of Ute Ladies'- Tresses.Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. 467 pp. Hafner, D.J., E. Yensen, and G.L. Kirkland, Jr. (eds.). 1998. North American rodents: status survey and conservation action plan. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. 171 pp. Hafner, DJ., K.E. Petersen, and T.L. Yates. 1981. Evolutionary relationships of jumping mice (Genus Zapus) of the southwestern United States. Journal ofMammalogy 62:501-512. Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 1181 pp. Hansen, C.M. 2006. Monitoring and movements of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in montane drainages of Pike National Forest, Colorado. M.S. Thesis, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. 181 pp. Hurd, B., N. Leary, R. Jones, and J, Smith. 1999. Relative regional vulnerability of water resources to climate change. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 1399-1409 IPCC. 2007a: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-22. IPCC. 2007b. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 55 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 24 Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. Kaufman, D.W., E.J. Finch, and G.A. Kaufman. 1990. Small mammals and grassland fires. pp. 46-80 in Fire in North American tallgrass prairies (S. L. Collins and L. L. Wallace, eds.). University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. Keinath, D.A. 2001. Habitat associations of Preble's meadow jumping mice in Wyoming: A GIS model and descriptive analysis. Report prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Prepared by Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Krutzsch, P.H. 1954. North American jumping mice (genus Zapus). University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 7:349-472. Malaney, J. L., & Cook, J. A. (2013). Using biogeographical history to inform conservation: the case of Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Molecular ecology, 22(24), 6000-6017. Meaney, C., A. Ruggles, N.W. Clippinger, and B. Lubow. 2002. The impact of recreational trails and grazing on small mammals in the Colorado Piedmont. The Prairie Naturalist 34:3-4. Meaney, C.A., A. Ruggles, C. Ahrens, and C. Ruggles. 2001. Survey for Preble's meadow jumping mice, Trout Creek at Rainbow Falls, Manitou Experimental Forest, Pike National Forest. Unpublished report prepared for Pike & San Isabel National Forest, Pikes Peak Ranger District, Colorado Springs. Meaney, C.A., A.K. Ruggles, B.C. Lubow, and N.W. Clippinger. 2003. Abundance, survival, and hibernation of Preble's meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Boulder County, Colorado. The Southwest Naturalist. 48(4):610-623. Meaney, C., M. Bakeman, M. Reed-Eckert, and E. Wostl. 2007. Effectiveness of ledges in culverts for small mammal passage. June 2007. Report No. CDOT-2007-9. Final Report. Milly, P.C.D., K.A. Dunne, and A.V. Vecchia. 2005. Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature 438:347-350. Pague, C.A. and L. Grunau. 2000. Conservation planning handbook for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Unpublished report to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. 44 pp. Perry, L. G., Andersen, D. C., Reynolds L. V., Nelson, S. M. & Shafroth, P. B. 2012. Vulnerability of riparian ecosystems to elevated CO2 and climate change in arid and semiarid western North America. Global Change Biology, 18(3), 821-842. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 56 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 25 Preble, E.A. 1899. Revision of the jumping mice of the genus Zapus. U.S. Department of Agriculture, North American Fauna 15:1-41. Quimby, D.C. 1951. The life history and ecology of the jumping mouse, Zapus hudsonius. Ecological Monographs 21:61-95. Riedel, L. 2002. Spiranthes diluvialis update: habitat, conservation issues, and monitoring. City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks, Boulder, Colorado. Ryon, T.R. 1996. Evaluation of the historic capture sites of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse in Colorado. MS thesis, University of Colorado, Denver. 65 pp. Ryon, T.R. 1999. Travel distance and movement patterns of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. Journal of Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Science 31: 12. Ryon, T.R. 2001. Summer nests of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Southwestern Naturalist 46 (3): 376-378. Schorr, R.A. 2001. Meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius preblei) on the U.S. Air Force Academy, El Paso County, Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Unpublished report to the Natural Resources Branch, U.S. Air Force Academy. 55 pp. Schorr, R.A. 201 I. 2011 Annual Summary of Activities Conducted Under Subpermit No. TE- 059369. Submitted to USFWS by Colorado Natural Heritage Program. October 20, 2011. Schorr, R.A. 2012. 2012 Annual Summary of Activities Conducted Under Subpermit No. TE- 059369. Submitted to USFWS by Colorado Natural Heritage Program. August 28, 2012. Schorr, R. A. 2012b. Using a temporal symmetry model to assess population change and recruitment in the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Journal ofMammalogy, 93(5), 1273-1282. SEI (Sustainable Ecosystems Institute). 2006a. Evaluation of Scientific Information Regarding Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. July 21, 2006. 82 pp. Shenk, T. 1998. Conservation assessment and preliminary conservation strategy for Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Fort Collins (CO): Colorado Division of Wildlife. 38 pp. Shenk, T.M. and J.T. Eussen. 1998. Habitat use and distribution of Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Larimer and Weld counties, Colorado. Unpublished report of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 25 pp.+ figures. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 57 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 26 Shenk, T. and M. Sivert. 1999a. Movement patterns of Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) as they vary across time and space. Fort Collins (CO): Colorado Division of Wildlife. 35 pp. Shenk, T.M. and M.M. Sivert. 1999b. Temporal and spatial variation in the demography of Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Unpublished report of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 16 pp. Sipes, S. D. and V. J. Tepedino. 1995. Reproductive biology of the rare orchid, Spiranthes diluvialis: breeding system, pollination, and implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 9(4):929-938. Sipes, S.D., V.J. Tepedino, and W.R. Bowlin. 1993. The pollination and reproductive ecology of Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak (Orchidaceae). Pp 320-333 in R. Sivinski and K. Lightfoot, eds. Proceedings of the Southwest Rare and Endangered Plant Conference. Miscellaneous publication No. 2. New Mexico Forestry and Conservation Division. Santa Fe, New Mexico. SPWRAP. 2006. Memorandum of Agreement for Implementation and Operation of the Colorado Portion of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Plan. Signed by the State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources and the South Platte Water-Related Activities Program, Inc. November 17, 2006. Stoecker, R .E. 1999. Preble's Jumping Mouse Survey. Black Squirrel Creek at Shoup Road. El Paso County, Colorado. Prepared for Mr. Jim Scott, Colorado Springs, CO. July 1999. Prepared by Robert E. Stoecker, Ph.D. Stoecker Ecological Consultants, Inc. Boulder, CO. 6 pp. SWCA. 2000. Preble's meadow jumping mouse survey report for Black Squirrel Creek on the Blake Property, El Paso County, Colorado. Prepared for Classic Communities, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, Colorado, and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, Colorado. Prepared by SWCA Inc., Westminster, Colorado. USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998 . Final rule to list the Preble's meadow jumping mouse as a threatened species. Federal Register 63(92):26517-26530. USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Draft Recovery Plan Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado. November 5, 2003. 95 pp. (Note: this plan was not a formally adopted Draft Recovery Plan issued by the Service.) USFWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2013). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on Two Petitions to Delist the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. May 24, 2013. 78 FR 31679. Federal Register 78 (101): 31679 -31712 (34 pages). Available online: https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-12387 . ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 58 of 72 Angelle Greer, Merry Lane water line replacement, PMJM, biological opinion Page 27 Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1963. A study of meadow jumping mouse, Zapus hudsonius (Zimmerman), in central New York. Ecological Monographs 33:215-254. White, G.D. and T.M. Shenk. 2000. Relationship of Preble's meadow jumping mouse densities to vegetation cover. Report to the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 13 pp. ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 59 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix C U.S. Fish and Wildlife Correspondence ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 60 of 72 ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 61 of 72 City of Boulder Wetland Permit Application Merry Lane Waterline Replacement City and County of Boulder, Colorado ERO Project #6726 ERO Resources Corporation Appendix D Construction Drawings ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item 4C Page 62 of 72 36MARSHALL DR93S. BOULDER RDTHISPROJECTS 68TH STWHALEYDRIVEMERRYLANES CHERRYVALE RDS. 68TH STS. CHERRYVALE RDMERRY LANEUS HIGHWAY 36WHALEY DRSHT. 3SHT. 4SHT. 5SHT. 6SSSSPrepared By:1Know what'sRFEBRUARY, 2019MERRY LANE WATERLINE REPLACEMENTMCCASLIN BLVDTHISPROJECTATTACHMENT CAgenda Item 4C Page 63 of 72 Merry LaneCity of BoulderCity of BoulderPatrick D. & Diana L.RollingsCity of BoulderMichael L.MascolaLynn &JamesHerklotzHIGHWAY 36(DENVER BOULDER TURNPIKE) ±Merry Lane541054155420542554305435544054455450541054155420542554305435544054455450-0+20 0+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+00℄MERRYLANE2STA. 00+00 TO 7+73PLAN & PROFILE -WATER LINE REPLACEMENTMERRY LANEBOULDER COUNTY, COCITY OF LAFAYETTEPRELIMINARY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -ATTACHMENT CAgenda Item 4C Page 64 of 72 COCity of BoulderHIGH W A Y 36(DENV E R B O U L D E R T U R N P IK 54055410541554205425543054355440540554105415542054255430543554409+80 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 17+20HIGHWAY 363STA. 10+00 TO 17+00PLAN & PROFILE -WATER LINE REPLACEMENTMERRY LANEBOULDER COUNTY, COCITY OF LAFAYETTEMATCHLINE STA. 17+00 SHEET 4PRELIMINARY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -ATTACHMENT CAgenda Item 4C Page 65 of 72 COCOCity of Boulder540554105415542054255430543554405405541054155420542554305435544016+80 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 24+204STA. 17+00 TO 24+00PLAN & PROFILE -WATER LINE REPLACEMENTMERRY LANEBOULDER COUNTY, COCITY OF LAFAYETTEMATCHLINE STA. 17+00 SHEET 3MATCHLINE STA. 24+00 SHEET 5PRELIMINARY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -ATTACHMENT CAgenda Item 4C Page 66 of 72 Janet A. JacksonCity of BoulderWhaley Dri v e 540554105415542054255430543554405405541054155420542554305435544023+80 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00WHALEY DRIVE5STA. 24+00 TO 30+25PLAN & PROFILE -WATER LINE REPLACEMENTMERRY LANEBOULDER COUNTY, COCITY OF LAFAYETTEMATCHLINE STA. 24+00 SHEET 4PRELIMINARY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -ATTACHMENT CAgenda Item 4C Page 67 of 72 ∅±±±6TYPICAL DETAILS - 1WATER LINE REPLACEMENTMERRY LANEBOULDER COUNTY, COCITY OF LAFAYETTEPRELIMINARY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -ATTACHMENT CAgenda Item 4C Page 68 of 72 7TYPICAL DETAILS - 2WATER LINE REPLACEMENTMERRY LANEBOULDER COUNTY, COCITY OF LAFAYETTEPRELIMINARY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -ATTACHMENT CAgenda Item 4C Page 69 of 72 8TYPICAL DETAILS - 3WATER LINE REPLACEMENTMERRY LANEBOULDER COUNTY, COCITY OF LAFAYETTEPRELIMINARY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -ATTACHMENT CAgenda Item 4C Page 70 of 72 Merry LaneCity of BoulderCity of BoulderPatrick D. & Diana L.RollingsCity of BoulderMichael L.MascolaLynn &JamesHerklotzHIGHWAY 36(DENVER BOULDER TURNPIKE) ±Merry LaneCOCity of BoulderHIGH W A Y 36(DENV E R B O U L D E R T U R N PI K E)SCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLCFCFSCLCF9STA. 00+00 TO 17+00CONSTRUCTION CONTROLSWATER LINE REPLACEMENTMERRY LANEBOULDER COUNTY, COCITY OF LAFAYETTESCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLCF MATCHLINE STA. 17+00 SHEET 10PRELIMINARY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -ATTACHMENT CAgenda Item 4C Page 71 of 72 COCOCity of BoulderSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCL SCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLJanet A. JacksonCity of BoulderWhaley Dri v e SCLSCLSCL SCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCLSCL SCL SCL SCLCF10STA. 17+00 TO 30+25CONSTRUCTION CONTROLSWATER LINE REPLACEMENTMERRY LANEBOULDER COUNTY, COCITY OF LAFAYETTEMATCHLINE STA. 24+00 BELOW LEFTMATCHLINE STA. 17+00 SHEET 9MATCHLINE STA. 24+00 ABOVE RIGHTPRELIMINARY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -ATTACHMENT CAgenda Item 4C Page 72 of 72