HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS-LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT EXPANSION - ODP210001 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ECS REPORT
5150 Snead Drive
Ecological Characterization Study
February 2021
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.0 Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Desktop Review ..................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Site Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 6
4.0 Ecological characterization ........................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 7
4.1.1 Noxious Weeds ..................................................................................................... 7
4.1.2 Vegetation Communities ........................................................................................ 7
4.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 12
4.3 Top of Bank Delineation ....................................................................................................... 13
4.4 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 14
4.4.1 Big Game ............................................................................................................ 14
4.4.2 Predators ............................................................................................................ 14
4.4.3 Other Mammals................................................................................................... 15
4.4.4 Raptors .............................................................................................................. 15
4.4.5 Upland Game Birds .............................................................................................. 15
4.4.6 Waterfowl and Shorebirds .................................................................................... 16
4.4.7 Migratory Songbirds ............................................................................................ 16
4.4.8 Amphibians, Reptiles, and Aquatic Species ............................................................ 16
4.5 Prominent Views .................................................................................................................. 17
4.6 Sensitive and Specially Valued Species .................................................................................. 17
4.7 Wildlife Migration Corridors ................................................................................................... 18
4.8 General Ecological Functions ................................................................................................. 18
4.9 Timing of Development in Relation to Ecological Character ..................................................... 18
5.0 Mitigation Measures and Recommendations ................................................................................ 20
6.0 Literature Cited and Data Sources .............................................................................................. 21
In-text Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Site Overview ....................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. Vegetation Communities on Site ............................................................................................ 8
Table 1. Special Status Species with Potential to Occur on Site ............................................................ 17
3
5150 Snead Drive
Ecological Characterization Study
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 5150 Snead Drive property (Site) is an approximately 5-acre parcel located just east of College Avenue
in south-central Fort Collins, southeast of the Fairway Lane and Snead Drive intersection. Currently, the
property encompasses a single building containing the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD) office.
The proposed development (Project) entails the construction of building/garage facilities and outdoor
storage features for FCLWD use in the undeveloped land that surrounds the existing building.
The Project may be located within 500 feet of natural features depicted in the City of Fort Collin’s (City)
Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map and/or known natural habitats of high ecological value. Thus,
an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) is required, under Article 3, Section 3.4.1 of the City’s Land Use
Code (LUC 3.4.1). LUC 3.4.1 stipulates development buffer zones of varying sizes be applied to any specified
natural habitats and features identified within 500-feet of the proposed Project.
This ECS (February 2021) provides a summary of the findings of field work, including a raptor nest survey,
wildlife observations, top of bank delineation, potential wetland survey, and characterization of vegetative
communities conducted on February 10, 2021. Potentially required buffer zones applicable to the Project
are discussed, as well as recommendations on mitigation measures or other opportunities to protect and/or
improve the ecological value of the Site.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The Site is located just east of College Avenue in south-central Fort Collins, southeast of the Fairway Lane
and Snead Drive intersection. The approximately 5-acre Site is entirely within Section 01, Township 6 North,
Range 69 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian. The property encompassed by the Site is comprised of four
parcels: 9601334902; 9601334901; 9601300905; and 9601333901. The coordinates for the Site are
40°30’56.88”N and 105°04’30.42”W. The Site is bordered two single-family residences with ranch-like
characteristics to the north, a residential neighborhood to the south, residential backyards the east, and
Snead Drive and a large commercial building to the west. An undeveloped parcel featuring a stormwater
drainage feature and associated wetlands is located southwest of the Site.
4
Approximately two acres of the Site encompass existing development, as indicated in Figure 1. Existing
features include the main FCLWD building, storage facilities, parking spaces, planted garden beds, and
swaths of concrete/asphalt ground cover. A tall fence surrounds the northern, eastern, and portions of the
south facing boundaries of existing development, largely obstructing FCLWD operations from the
surrounding residences. Several patches of turfgrass lawn and planted beds with ornamental trees and
shrubs are located at the front of the existing building and along the parking lot, as indicated on Figure 2.
The remainder of the Site is undeveloped, and comprised almost entirely of mowed uplands, except for an
approximately 3-foot drainage ditch that begins at the eastern boundary of the Site and spans about 250-
feet to the west, running just south of the Site’s northern boundary. These features are depicted on Figure
1.
The Site’s topography is fairly level across much of the southern half, gently sloped across much of the
northern portion, and more significantly sloped along its northernmost boundary. Across the northern half
of the Site, the prevailing slope facilitates the transport of runoff southward, continuing towards a shallow
swale that runs parallel to the northern fence line. In the northeastern quarter, runoff from the north would
be largely interrupted by the drainage ditch indicated in Figure 1 before reaching the drainage swale
downhill. Elevation across the bottom of the drainage ditch is fairly level, and it was unable to be determined
if water is retained in place or flows in either direction, due to absence of water retention during February
2021 field surveys.
5
6
3.0 METHODS
3.1 Desktop Review
A data review was conducted to gather information and assist in the identification and evaluation of natural
and biological resources within the Site and nearby vicinity. The data review included review of online
resources and publications to determine the potential presence of important natural and biological
resources and inform an understanding of their characteristics, quality, and ecological value. This data
review included:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Federally Listed and Proposed Endangered, Threatened,
and Candidate Species and Critical Habitat as identified by the USFWS Information, Planning, and
Conservation System (IPaC) Official Species List and Critical Habitat Mapper;
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) protected
species as identified on the IPAC Trust Resources Report;
The Colorado Natural Heritage Program database state-wide species and natural community
tracking list for Larimer County;
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Threatened and Endangered Species List;
City’s Natural Areas Species of Concern list (Restoration Plan 2016-25, 2016);
The City’s Land Use Code (Article 3, Section 3.4.1);
The City’s Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map (2000);
The Colorado Wetland Inventory (CWI);
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); and
US Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey.
3.2 Site Assessment
Field surveys for the ECS included a top of bank delineation, raptor nest survey, potential wetland
evaluation, vegetation characterization, noxious weed survey, general wildlife survey, and an assessment
of wildlife habitat and utilization.
Surveys for the ECS were conducted by Ms. Allison Robinson. Ms. Allison Robinson has 4 years of experience
as an environmental consultant, performing top of bank and wetland delineations, wildlife surveys,
vegetative inventories, and various other ecological evaluations. She is familiar with the regulatory
requirements for development projects in Fort Collins and the surrounding region.
7
4.0 ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION
4.1 Vegetation
Field surveys to classify vegetation communities on Site were conducted on February 10, 2021. Evaluating
community composition on a species-specific scale was particularly difficult since the evaluation was not
conducted in the growing season. Difficulties with identification were further magnified by mowing of the
upland community, which was executed close to the ground and left minimal above-ground plant structures
to observe, much of which was dead at the time of the evaluation. Nearly all vegetation on Site had
undergone senescence prior to the survey, and the lack of foliage, flowers, and other morphological
structures that are typically used to visually identify vegetation species precluded definitive identification of
most herbaceous species on Site.
For these reasons, vegetative classifications should be considered tentative until a survey during the
growing season can occur, if necessary.
4.1.1 Noxious Weeds
One noxious weed species was positively identified during field surveys, though it is possible that other
noxious weeds occur on Site. A small, isolated population of common mullein (Verbascum thapsus, C-list)
was observed in the channel of the drainage ditch, which was dry during February 2021 surveys.
Additionally, an unknown, likely non-native grass species is found throughout the Site, which was not
positively identified, has potential to be cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum, C-List). No other definitive or
potential noxious weed species were observed on Site during February 2021 field surveys, however a survey
during the growing season is recommended to confirm these results.
4.1.2 Vegetation Communities
Four vegetation communities were used to describe vegetation on Site: mesic herbaceous; herbaceous
upland (likely non-native); turfgrass/ornamental; and disturbed. These vegetation communities are
described below and presented on Figure 2.
8
9
Mesic Herbaceous
Vegetation within and along the banks of the drainage ditch on Site has been tentatively characterized as
a mesic herbaceous vegetation community. The ditch was dry at the time of the February 2021 field survey.
This community is dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and significant patches of emerging
trees. Tree species include plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), and
several young, recently planted trees of an unknown species. A small population of common mullein was
observed within the drainage ditch channel. If a survey during the growing season reveals minimal water
retention occurs in the channel year-round and conditions more consistent with drier upland conditions,
this community would be better characterized as non-native upland herbaceous.
Mesic Herbaceous – east end of drainage ditch
10
Mesic Herbaceous – west end of drainage ditch
Herbaceous Upland (likely non-native)
A large portion of the Site is characterized by an herbaceous upland vegetation community dominated by
one or two grass species. Dominant grass species were determined to likely be non-native, though presence
of native species (grass or forb) is possible and should be confirmed during the growing season. This
community also encompasses a small group of coniferous trees located along the northern fence-line.
Upland Herbaceous (likely non-native)
11
Turfgrass/Ornamental
The turfgrass/ornamental vegetation community represents the small patches of maintained turfgrass lawn
and planted beds located near the existing FCLWD facility. Ornamental beds feature spruces, pines, and
ornamental shrub species planted in a rock/gravel substrate.
Turfgrass
Ornamental
12
Disturbed
The northwestern portion of the Site has been classified as disturbed due to an abundance of bare ground
and limited vegetation cover. Bare ground cover fluctuated between 40-70% across the area at the time
of the February field survey. Vegetation cover was dominated by two grass species, which are likely non-
native and occur in a patchy mosaic. A desktop evaluation of this area by aerial imagery from July 2019
indicates that this portion of the Site exhibits a large proportion of bare-ground cover even during the
growing season, however conditions should be surveyed during the growing season to ensure correct
classification.
Disturbed
4.2 Wetlands
CWI and NWI do not report any wetlands occurring within or in the near vicinity of the Site. Field evaluations
of the Site asserted no wetlands or potential wetlands occurred on Site. One wetland was observed in the
parcel adjacent to the southwest corner of the Site, however the associated 50-foot buffer requirement
does not overlap Site boundaries. Historical imagery dating to 1999 does not reveal any major changes in
vegetation, topography, or stream/ditch channels that would indicate previously existing wetlands or
different hydrological regime.
The drainage ditch in the northeastern corner of the Site was evaluated for potential wetland conditions
during the February 2021 field evaluation. The drainage ditch was largely dry at the time the survey, aside
from some piles of recent snow. No evidence of long-term water retention was identified in the field (i.e.
aquatic/wetland plant species, water lines along the banks or on vegetation, etc.). It seems unlikely that
13
the drainage ditch retains a significant amount of water, either short-term or long-term, based on land uses
adjacent to the Site, local climate conditions, and presence of upland species within the channel. Unless
runoff is supplemented by excess flow from the residential properties to the north or east, water retention
in the ditch would be relatively consistent with the precipitation occurring on Site.
Vegetation species occurring within and along the banks of the drainage ditch are detailed in Section 4.1.2.
The vegetation species identified along the drainage ditch banks and within the channel are typically
indicative of upland conditions. No live or senesced species classified as wetland obligate or wetland
facultative were identified in this community, nor any evidence that wetland/aquatic species or their
supporting habitat occurs in this area. No other vegetative, soil, or hydrologic indicators of wetlands were
identified during the February 2021 field survey.
It was determined to be overall unlikely that the drainage ditch functions as a wetland. Coordination with
FCLWD on the amount and duration of water retention occurring in the drainage ditch may provide further
insight on water retention in the drainage ditch. A wetland evaluation during the growing season is
recommended to confirm the results of this survey.
One wetland associated with a stormwater drainage feature was identified off-site during the field
evaluation. It is located within the property just beyond the southwest corner of the Site, on the other side
of Snead Drive. Its boundaries are clearly defined even outside of the growing season, as indicated by a
discrete boundary from a coyote willow-dominated community to an upland herbaceous vegetation
community which is consistent with that found elsewhere on the property. The off-site wetland was
delineated with a resulting size of approximately 0.15-acres, which stipulates a 50-foot buffer under LUC
3.4.1. The 50-foot buffer associated with this wetland does not overlap with Site boundaries and therefore
does not apply to the Project.
4.3 Top of Bank Delineation
The drainage ditch was the only potential water body identified on Site, which does not necessitate a top-
of-bank delineation according to LUC 3.4.1 since it does not contain perennial flow. An aerial delineation
was completed and is displayed on Figure 1. Given the steep, consistent banks of the ditch, the differences
between this delineation and top-of-bank would be negligible and could be used interchangeably, if a top-
of-bank delineation were to be determined necessary in the future.
14
4.4 Wildlife
Incidental wildlife observations and a raptor nest survey were conducted during the February 2021 field
survey. No wildlife was observed on Site during the February survey. Temperatures in the low 30’s and
light snow during evaluations may have influenced these results to some degree, however the absence of
wildlife on Site would not be unusual, even in more mild weather, based on Site conditions. The overall
value of the Site to wildlife was determined to be overall low.
Vegetation communities on Site have been diminished by non-native species and exhibit limited biodiversity,
resulting in low quality forage for wildlife. Mowing on Site has diminished the quality and quantity of
potential forage species. Absence of seed heads amongst last year’s vegetative litter suggests that mowing
occurs prior to seed head production, with grass seed being a significant dietary component of many small
mammal and bird species. Additionally, mowing likely precludes the uplands on Site from providing suitable
cover for most species, offering little to no protection from predators or the elements.
Fossil Creek is located approximately 400 feet south of the Site, which supports wildlife habitat far
preferable to that found on Site in both quantity and quality. Fossil Creek also functions as a wildlife corridor
that connects the western foothills to large bodies of water and other tributaries to the east. The Site is
largely disconnected from this corridor by urban developments and road barrier. With the exception of
urban-adapted wildlife species that benefit from development and human activity, most wildlife would likely
avoid the Site in favor of Fossil Creek, given its close proximity and preferable habitat in both quantity and
quality.
4.4.1 Big Game
No big game species were observed on Site during the February field survey and no crucial big game
habitats are recognized on Site.
The value of the Site and adjacent areas to big game is low due to the urban location and proximity to
College Avenue. Additionally, grass on Site is likely mowed too low to the ground to provide suitable forage
and is likely low-quality, and thus big game would have little to no reason to occur on Site frequently or for
more than a temporary stopover. Overall, the likelihood that big game would occur on Site is low and is
expected to further decline as urban development increases.
4.4.2 Predators
No predators were observed on Site during the February field survey.
Mid-sized predators adapted to urban ecosystems may occasionally utilize the Site, including red fox (Vulpes
vulpes) and coyote (Canis latrans). However, the value to predators is still relatively low due to its urban
location, proximity to College Avenue, and lack of suitable cover for predator species. Supporting prey
15
species are not likely prevalent on Site due to the limited vegetation cover and diminished forage quality,
particularly if mowing precludes grass seed heads production. The abundance of preferable habitat along
Fossil Creek further decreases the likelihood that predator species would occur on Site. Overall, habitat
value to predator species is low and is expected to continue to decline as urban development increases.
4.4.3 Other Mammals
No mammals were observed on Site during the February field survey.
A variety of small and medium sized mammal species are known to occur locally, although not observed
during field surveys, including various small rodents including mice, rats, ground squirrels, and chipmunks.
Such prey species are cyclically common, widespread throughout the region, and are important food
sources for raptors and other predators. Striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis) thrive in urban areas and semi-
urban areas. No prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) were observed on or adjacent to the Site.
4.4.4 Raptors
No raptors or their nests were observed on Site during the February field survey. No suitable bald eagle
winter roost habitat within or in the nearby vicinity of the Site was reported by CPW or identified during
the field evaluation.
Raptor species known to occur in the region include turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), bald eagle (Haleaeetus
leucocephalus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysateos), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), and prairie
falcon (Falco mexicanus). Some of these species are year-round residents, some are seasonal visitors, and
some are migrants.
The value of the Site and adjacent areas to raptors was determined to be overall low due to few available
hunting perches and a limited prey base due to diminished vegetation communities. Even locally common
raptor species are unlikely to frequently occur on Site, with most visits limited to a temporary stopover.
Suitable foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat along Fossil Creek would be a preferred alternative to
habitat use on Site. The cottonwood tree along the drainage ditch is likely the only potentially suitable
habitat on Site for most raptor species, as the others are small and provide a limited viewshed of the
surrounding area.
4.4.5 Upland Game Birds
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Species Activity Mapping (SAM) indicates the Site is located within the
habitat range of the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus). Habitat value of the Site to ring-necked
pheasant and other game bird species occurring locally is overall low.
16
4.4.6 Waterfowl and Shorebirds
No waterfowl or shorebirds were observed on Site during the February 2021 survey. The Site does not
contain perennial bodies of water or other potentially valuable habitat to these species, and accordingly, is
not a concentration area for migratory or nesting waterfowl or shorebirds.
Absence of aquatic habitat on Site would likely preclude occurrence of most water-obligate species, though
it is possible that species more accustomed to urban environments, such as Canada goose (Branta
canadensis), may occasionally utilize the Site as a temporary stopover. Occurrences on Site are likely
infrequent and limited to a temporary stopover.
4.4.7 Migratory Songbirds
No migratory songbirds were observed on Site during the February 2021 field survey. However,
temperatures in the low 30’s and snow that began shortly after beginning the survey may have influenced
these results to some degree.
Nesting activity is likely limited to the few trees on Site, as mowing activities and diminished vegetation
communities would leave ground nests highly exposed. Habitat value for tree-nesting songbirds is present
but low quality, as most nests would be left exposed to visually and to the elements. The quality and
quantity of potential forage for migratory songbirds has been diminished in quantity and quality, resulting
in low value to migratory birds. Foraging value of the Site to migratory songbirds is significantly diminished
by mowing prior to grass seed head production, as grass seeds are a significant dietary component of many
species. Overall, it is likely that migratory birds occasionally frequent the Site and nearby vicinity, though
use is likely limited to a temporary stopover given the abundance of preferential habitat in close proximity
and low habitat value of the Site.
4.4.8 Amphibians, Reptiles, and Aquatic Species
No amphibians, reptiles, or aquatic species were observed during the February 2021 field survey. No aquatic
habitat was observed on Site, and therefore occurrence of amphibian species is unlikely and aquatic species
are not present.
Locally common reptiles with potential to occur on Site include plains spadefood (Spea bombifrons) and
Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo woodhousei). Less common reptile species include the common garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis) and wandering (terrestrial) gartersnake (Thamnophis elegans vagrans). Habitat value
of the Site to reptiles is low due to the diminished vegetation communities on Site, which provide limited
protection from predators, and support few small mammal species that serve as prey for snakes. It is likely
that reptiles occasionally frequent the Site and nearby vicinity, though use is probably infrequent due to
the low habitat value of the Site.
17
4.5 Prominent Views
Views across the Site to the west are immediately met with Snead Drive and the large commercial building
that lies on its opposite side. To the north, two residential properties with large backyards, equipment, and
various storage structures, suggesting small ranching or other agriculture activities may occur here. Views
to the east are immediately met with residential backyards. To the south, views are met with a residential
neighborhood.
4.6 Sensitive and Specially Valued Species
A current list of federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, and designated critical
habitat that may occur within the boundary of the Site and/or may be affected by the proposed
development was obtained from the USFWS IPaC website (2021). Table 1 lists the species and their
habitats. No USFWS designated critical habitat occurs in or near the Site. Suitable habitat for CPW, Larimer
County, and City species of concern/interest is not present on Site. No prairie dogs or evidence of a
previously existing colony were observed on or directly adjacent to the Site during field surveys in February
2021.
Table 1 5150 Snead Drive - Special Status Species with Potential to Occur on the Site
Species Federal
Status1 Habitat Habitat
Present?Determination
Mammals
Canada Lynx
Lynx canadensis
Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse
Zapus hudsonius preblei
Birds
Mexican Spotted Owl
Stri occidentalis lucida
Piping Plover
Charadrius melodus
Whooping Crane
Grus americana
Fish
Greenback Cutthroat Trout
Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias
Pallid Sturgeon
Scaphirhynchus albus
Flowering Plants
Ute Ladies'-tresses
Spiranthes diluvialis
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid
Platanthera praeclara
Source: USFWS 2018
1DL = Delisted, E = Federally Endangered, T = Federally Threatened, PT = Proposed Threatened, C = Candidate
2The bald eagle was removed from the fedarl list of T&E species in 2007, but it continues to enjoy protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)and Bald and Golden
Eagle Portection Act (BGEPA).
E Wetlands, inland marshes, lakes, ponds, wet meadows
and rivers, and agricultural fields.No No Effect
E Large, free-flowing, warm-water, and turbid rivers with a
diverse assemblage of physical habitats.No No Effect
T
Tall grass prairie on unplowed, calcareous prairies, and
sedge meadows. Upstream depletions to the Platte River
system in Wyoming may affect the species in NE.
No EffectNoMoist boreal/subalpine forests in the W. US with cold,
snowy winters and a high-density snowshoe hare prey
base.
T
T This species inhabits cold water streams and lakes with
adequate stream spawning habitat during spring.No No Effect
No EffectNo
Nesting/roosting habitat typically occurs either in well-
structured forests with high canopy cover, large trees, and
other late seral characteristics, or in steep and narrow
rocky canyons formed by parallel cliffs with numerous
caves and/or ledges within specific geological formations.
T
No EffectNoLush vegetation along watercourses or herbaceous
understories in wooded areas near water.T
T Sandy beaches, sandflats, dredge islands, and drained
river floodplains.No No Effect
T
No No Effect
No EffectNoSeasonally moist soils and wet meadows of drainages
below 7000' elevation.
18
4.7 Wildlife Migration Corridors
The Site is located in a moderately developed area of the City, in a transition zone between higher density
development to the north and lower density development to the south. Land use surrounding the Site is a
mosaic of residential developments, commercial developments, natural/undeveloped areas, and
pastureland. Fossil Creek lies approximately 600 feet to the south, serving as a significant wildlife migration
corridor through this region of Fort Collins.
It is unlikely that the Site serves as a significant migration corridor for sensitive, unique, or regionally
protected wildlife. Fossil Creek Parkway is an approximately 75-foot wide barrier between the Site and
Fossil Creek to the south, and College Avenue lies approximately 400 feet west of the Site. The noise
associated with traffic, urban and residential development, and diminished habitat quality would likely deter
non-flying wildlife from attempting to access the Site. Instead, Fossil Creek provides a preferential wildlife
migration corridor that exhibits high-quality habitat, a greater degree of cover, seclusion from residential
and commercial development, and a variety of other natural resources. The location and low habitat quality
of the Site provides potentially suitable cover for migratory birds, and possible perch sites for raptors,
though diminished vegetation communities on Site support limited forage for migratory birds and a limited
prey base for raptors.
Resulting changes to wildlife corridor quality should be minimal given that the property is located in a
moderately developed area where wildlife is already accustomed to structures, roads, bridges, fences,
buildings, and other habitat modifications. While wildlife species unaccustomed to significant urban habitat
modifications may be found in close proximity to the Site, they are unlikely to utilize the Site as a wildlife
corridor or for other purposes.
4.8 General Ecological Functions
The general ecological functions provided by the Site have been reduced by multiple human-induced
stressors including adjacent residential and commercial development, proximity to College Avenue, and
diminished vegetation communities. The trees on Site may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory
songbirds, as well as some degree of shading, cover, and resident migratory benefit for urban-adapted
wildlife. Overall, the general ecological function of the Site is low.
4.9 Timing of Development in Relation to Ecological Character
The MBTA specifically protects migratory birds and their nests from possession, sale, purchase, barter,
transport, import, export, and take. The regulatory definition of take (50 CFR 10.12) means to pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt these actions.
19
It is recommended that ground-disturbing activities be conducted from late summer to late winter to avoid
the avian nesting and breeding season. If that is not compatible with construction schedules, additional
surveys are recommended prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities to ensure compliance
with the MBTA.
20
5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the absence of natural habitats and features considered high value to the City of Fort Collins on
Site, no buffer restrictions are applicable to the Project as defined by LUC 3.4.1. The wetland found along
the stormwater feature in the property southwest of the Site encompasses only 0.15-acres. This stipulates
a 50-foot development buffer per the LUC, which does not overlap Site boundaries, and therefore is not
applicable to the Project.
Potentially applicable buffers not addressed in this report include those stipulated by the City’s Forestry
Department. It is possible some of the trees on Site are considered significant vegetation, the status of
which is determined by the Forestry Department and subject to their mitigation requirements.
A follow-up evaluation of the Site during the growing season is recommended to definitively identify
vegetation species on Site, confirm a correct classification of vegetation on Site, and evaluate moisture
conditions in the drainage ditch. Concurrently, all additional noxious species observed on Site should be
recorded, as well as any incidental observations of wildlife species. If the results of this evaluation
necessitate changes to this February 2021 ECS, which would be determined in coordination with the City
of Fort Collins Environmental Planning Department, an updated report would be submitted for review.
Potential mitigation measures include shifting lot locations away from the existing trees on Site. If possible,
planting of native trees, shrubs, and vegetative communities is recommended to improve the habitat value
of the Site to wildlife. Noxious weed control should be implemented through the development of a weed
management plan.
Light spillage is a potential impact to the natural resources on Site, as per LUC 3.2.4(D)(6). A lighting plan
should be prepared to minimize lighting impacts to natural resources.
21
6.0 LITERATURE CITED AND DATA SOURCES
City of Fort Collins – Natural Areas Department. 2016. Restoration Plan 2016-2025.
City of Fort Collins. 2000. Natural Habitat and Features Inventory Map.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2012. Colorado Nonpoint Source Program 2012
Management Plan, Appendix G.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Threatened and Endangered Species List.
https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx . Accessed 2/10/2020.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Colorado Wetland Inventory.
https://csurams.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a8e43760cb934a5084e89e
46922580cc. Accessed 2/10/2020.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Great Plains (Version 2.0).
US Fish and Wildlife Service. Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC).
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed 2/10/2020.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper.
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed 2/10/2020.