HomeMy WebLinkAbout1041 - FCLWD TRILBY WATER TANK FEEDER LINE PRE-APPLICATION - - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - Application (3)August 7, 2024
Todd Sullivan
Development Review Coordinator
City of Fort Collins Development Review Center
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Trilby Water Storage Tank Expansion Project
Mr. Sullivan,
On behalf of the Fort Collins — Loveland Water District, I am submitting this letter and its attachments for
your consideration of a 1041 Regulations Area & Activity Review for FONSI Determination. Included in this
submission are the Submittal Checklist and Guide; a completed Development Reivew Application; a written
Project Information and Design Narrative; an Ecological Characterization Study; and Prairie Dog
Management Plan.
Based on previous coordination in January of this year with Kirk Longstein, some requirements for the 1041
submittal have been waived or reduced. This is reflected in the Checklist and Guide. Also, based on
coordination with Sharon Appell, the following responses are respectfully submitted for your review in
response to the City of Fort Collins' July 26, 2024 Preapplication Review comments.
Comment 1: Acknowledged.
Comment 2: Development Review Application is complete and signed. The requirement for "Applicant
Agreement to Pay the Costs of Third-Party Consultants" has been waived and is therefore not included.
Comment 3: Acknowledged.
Comment 4: Acknowledged: this letter is submitted for this response requirement.
Comment 5: This is a small project, and files for this submittal are being submitted electronically. One
overall PDF file is being submitted which includes all components in a report and appendix format:
"2024.8.7-CFC_1041_FONSI_Application.pdf". This file meets the 150 MG maximum file size and can be
circulated to all City departments to present the reviewers with a complete package. In addition, this
application has been separated into smaller files and renamed to meet the City's naming convention for the
components that may need to routed to various City Departments for review. The intent of this approach is
to provide the City Reviewer with the most flexibility in routing and evaluating this proposal, considering the
complexity of the review process.
Comment 6: Acknowledged. All submitted PDFs have been optimized.
Comment 7: Acknowledged.
Comment 8: The FCLWD has issued a check for $25,000 to be submitted at the appropriate time.
Ally Utility Consulting, LLC � Fort Collins, Colorado �_„_»� �; ti ��-�r�� ,_��_, �(970) 217-0736
Todd Sullivan, City of Fort Collins
August 7, 2024
Page 2 of 2
Comment 9: Acknowledged. Thank you for working with us to submit this today (Wednesday) at 2:00 PM, a
little later than the stipulated noon deadline.
Comment 10: Acknowledged.
Comment 11: Acknowledged.
Comment 12: Exhibit 2(Area and Activity Map) has been updated to illustrate the two City Natural Areas by
name, and to show property/parcel lines and numbers for all parcels adjacent to the project LOD.
Comment 13: "Project Information and Design Narrative" has been updated to consider all potential
temporary and permanent impacts for each alternative; a list of anticipated permits and their status; and a
map from COEnviroScreen for Disproportionately Impacted Communities. The report has also been
expanded to address the seven (7) common review criteria per LUC 6.27.6.5 and how the preferred
alternative meets the criteria's evaluation of no significant impacts.
Comment 14: The "Ecological Characterization Study" has been updated to reflect additional verification
and analysis of the City of Fort Collins' Natural Habitat and Features Map as well as the Colorado Parks
and Wildlife High Priority Habitat Map.
Comment 15: After reviewing the March 26, 2024 response letter from the Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, we have confirmed that while two prior surveys have been located in the area, zero
sites were identified as outlined in the Ecological Characterization Study:
Coordination with the Colorado State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) was conducted in March/April
2024 to determine if any previously recorded cultural resource sites exist within 0.5-mile of the proposed
impact area. According to the SHPO, two cultural resource surveys had previously been conducted in this
search area. However, due to the confidential nature of recorded cultural resource data, the locations of
these surveys were not provided. No recorded cultural resource sites or areas were identified in the areas
that were surveyed, or anywhere within 0.5-mile of the study area. Therefore, the project would have no
effect on recorded cultural resource sites.
In the event a paleontological or archeological site is discovered during construction of the project, all
construction activities would cease and the SHPO would be contacted to determine how to proceed. The
correspondence letter from the SHPO and information on the two previous cultural resource surveys are
attached in Appendix E.
Comment 16: The "Project Information and Design Narrative" has been updated to acknowledge the City's
requirement for construction window limited to between September 1 and March 31 to avoid direct impacts
to avian resources in the area. A prairie dog management plan has also been developed and included.
Recent discussions with City staff have also waived the requirements to ensure permanent preventative
measures for recolonization of this LOD.
Comment 17: Acknowledged.
Comment 18: Additional language has been added.
Ally Utility Consulting, LLC � Fort Collins, Colorado �_,�»� ��, _ti ��-tr�o�_��, ;��_� �(970) 217-0736
Todd Sullivan, City of Fort Collins
August 7, 2024
Page 3 of 3
Comment 19: Additional language has been added to the "Project Information and Design Narrative" to
ensure this concern is fully addressed through the ground water discharge permit system as administered
by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this submittal. Please contact me if I can be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
�� C��
Chris Matkins, P.E.
Ally Utility Consulting, LLC � Fort Collins, Colorado �,,:� , __ __..� _ r_ �(970) 217-0736
1041 Regulations Area & �►ctirr�tv Review
For FONSI Determination
Gorn�let� ��brnittal Check���� �r�d �uid�o
Project Name; Trilby Water Storage Tank Expansion Project
Applicant Name: Fort Collins Loveland Water District
Pro�ect Type: Domestic Water
Project Number {if assigned):
� New Submittal � Revision Review Round
Staff Review Meeting Date:
Submittal Date:
Development Review Coordinator: Todd Sullivarl TSullivatl@fCgov.Com
This checklist and application form requires information from, and provides guidance to, applicants for permits,
pursuant to the City Fort Collins Regulations for Areas and Activities of State Interest (the "Regulations"). This
application is supplementary to, and not in replacement of the specific and detailed requirements of the
Regulations. Any conflict between the requirements of the Regulations as generally described in this
application form, and the Regulations themselves, shall be resolved in favor of the Regulations.
Refer to the Submittal Requirements Document for a description of these review types. All checklist items
are required unless city staff indicates an item is (W)aived, (D)eferred, (Nfl�)Not Applicable or already
(R)eceived. If the staff code is blank, then the item is required. This checklist must be reviewed,
completed and accepted by staff prior to project routing. Additional information may be requested from the
applicant during the review process, if necessary, to address specific issues that arise. Please nofe that ali
application materials, once submitted, become a matter of public record.
Checklist, Submittal Form�. and Fees:
Staft
Code
Applicant
Validatioa
Item Description
One copy of this checklist, completed and signed by applicant
One signed copy of the Development Review Application
REQUIRED
; 7% � 712023
Payment for the above application form
Pavments can be made bv check, debiUcredit card or eCheck
Submittal Requirement
Resources
Development Review Coordination
■ DRCoord an.fcqov.com
■ 970-221-6689
� Check: Make payable to "City of Fort Collins". Mail to the Development Review Center, 281 N College Ave, Fort Collins.
�CO 80524, OR place in the blue tlrop box located at the west side of the building. Mark for the attention of your
Development Review Coortlinator, referencing your project.
Card or eCheck: Would be processed online at fcgov.com/CitizenAccess. Credit card payments include a convenience
fee of 2% +�0.25 added to all payments under $2,500.00, and 2.75% added to all payments over $2,500.00. ECheck
payments include a convenience fee of $0.50 added to all payments.
�Pieaso ao�rse your oevaiopmcnr rtov�cw coo�rnnmo� as m wn�cn puy�nc�u rr�cmoa wvf ne usru. �Fcnoos�ny ro pay on-ime, }rourOeveropn7ent Revlew Goordlnator
win provitle you with the project information and let you know when the fees are available to be paid.
l iO4 �,�egut�ir,:lrs Fte-Ap,�11C�ttoti Submrfta! Ghec�Clrst
Electronic Copies�
All copies must be provided per City file naming standards and submitted electronically. All copies must be
prepared per city PDF formatting standards.
See: Submittai Requirements Section M— File Naming Standards 8� PDF formatting standards
* Paper copies of plans and reports are not required during development review. See Submittal Requirements,
Section D for drawing format guidelines. All plan elements shall be clearly drawn and labelled. A scale barmust
be provided on all sca►ed drawings. Paper copies of plan sheets may be requested to complete a timely review,
including instances when the drawing scale is not accurately depicted.
1) General Information:
Prior to submitting an application for a permit under the Regulations, the prospective applicant must
schedule and attend a Pre-Application review with the Director pursuant to Section 6.6.3 of the Land
Use Code. At or before the Pre-Application meeting, the applicant shall provide the Director with the
information with the following�
STAFFCODE
APP�ICANT
ITEM DESCRIPTION
WAIVED
�i
Applicant Agreement to pay the costs of:
❑ The Director retaining third-party consultants necessary
io assist fihe Director in making a FONSI deiermination
pursuanfi to Section 6.6.5;
❑ The Director retaining third-party consultants necessary
to assist the Director with the completeness review of :
any submitted application puf�suant to Section 6.6.8;
❑ The Director retaining third party consultants necessary
to assist City staff in reviewing a complete permit
application or City Council in rendering a decision on a
permit;
i i!97/2023 � 1041 Regulatrans Area & ActF���t,i Review Scii�rn,irta! Cl7eckfisf
�� ���������� �o��r������:
�
i� APPLICANT
; STAFF CODE IvAuoanoti ITEM DESCRIPTION
i
; REQUIRED
i
� STAFF NOTES: Names and addresses of all persons or interests proposing
� the designated activity
REQUIRED
STAFF NOTES: Name and qualifications of the person(s) responding on
behalf of the applicant
REQUIRED
Modified requirement: A written summary of the Project inciuding a map prepared at
Ian easily readable scale showing:
Applicant may submit 2 siting � Three (3) siting and design alternatives.
alternatives (one should show • One of which is fihe preferred location, drafted at
avoidance of the City owned natural approximately thirty percent ( 30%) completeness.
area and only 1 design alternative are • One (1) of the three (3) alternatives submitted shall
avoid natural features and historic and cultural
required. resources and avoid the need for mitigation to the
Staff review includes components of maximum extent feasible.
the projects within a 500-feet buffer
extending from the limits of
disturbance (LOD) within the Citylimits
REQUIRED
STAFF NOTES: Modified � Any additional information requested by the Director as
necEssary to facilitate a productive pre-application meeting
requirement: and to enable the Director to make a determination of the
required permitting procedure and applicable portions of
the Development plan under review is the Regulations.
limited to project component within Other inforrr�ation and data as required for �he full and
City limits. to review the impacts complete consideration of the development (to be
within the City limits, activities of completed by City staff):
i nterest are limited to a 500-feet buffer The City's 1041 jurisdiction for permitting is restricted only to project components within the
City limits. Areas of interest associated with the Trilby Water Storage Tank Expansion
extending from the limits of Project are limited to includes components of the projects within a 500-feet buffer
disturbance LOD located within the e�endingfrom the LOD located within the
( ) citylimits
Citylimits
11/17/2023 4 � D�€1 Regufatrons Rrea & Actrvity Revievv Subrnirtal Checklrst
� �g�,Y+ �a�
..�y -i�F�s �a��f���`.d� %�d";avzCa�'4��oa
STAFF CODE
REQUIRED
Modified Requirement: Vicinity map
and the associated Development Plan
is limited to components of the
projects within a 500-feet buffer
extending from the limits of
disturbance (LOD) located within the
Citylimits
The Ecological Characterization Study
should identify Natural Features within
the same 500' buffer.
REQUIRED
Modified requirement:
Pfease provide an Ecological
Characterization Study within 500' of
the LOD located within the citylimits.
lnL\1�1��
APPLICANT
VALIDATION
u
Vicinity Map
ITEM DESCRIPTION
0 A vicinity map of the preferred siting and proposed
development plan projected at an easily readable
scale showing the outline of the perimeter of the
parcel proposed for the project site ( for linear
facilities, the proposed centerline and width of any
corridor to be considered), property parcels,
location of all residences and businesses, any
abutting subdivision outlines and names, the
boundaries of any adjacent municipality or growth
management area, roads ( clearly labeled} and
natural features within a half 1/2) mile radius and
identified historic and cultural resources within a
two hundred 200) foot radius of the project site
boundary;
Ecological Characterization Study
� An Ecological Characterization Study as defined
by Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 within a half (
1/2) mile radius of the impact area; and a cultural
and historic resource survey documentation and
determinations of Fort Cgllins landmark eliaibifity
for resources within two hundred ( 200) feet of the
project site boundary for each of the three siting
alternatives.
Landmark Designation
❑ All final determinations of eligibility for designation
as a Fort Collins landmark shall be made in the
reasonable discretion of City Historic Preservation
staff after reviewing the cultural and historic
resource survey and such determinations are not
subject to appeal.
? i,� ?7i?Cli.s 4; tpq i�eyu/dtic;;s firea �/-'+,c;ti�;;iy Re�irew Sul.�mifda! C}7�ck�4si
STAFF CODE APPLICANT
VALIDATION ITEM DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED
Modified requirement:
Cumulative Impacts on natural
features within a 500-feet radius
extending from the LOD located within
cityimits. the scope of review is
limited to adverse impacts within the
city limits only.
WAIVED
STAFF NOTES:
REQUIRED
STAFF NOTES: Any mitigation
� Any required certificate of appropriateness pursuant
to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
allowing proposed alterations to any designated
historic or cultural resource that may be affected by
the proposed development plan.
proposed should be limited to adverse i
impacts within the city limits only and 1� Conceptual Mitigation Plans
also subject to the Natural Areas
Easement Policy
Traffic Mitigation Plans should include
proposed detours, construction
timelines, and construction options to
mitigate the duration of closures. _
� Written Summaries
❑ A written summary of the cumulative impacts on
natural features within a half ( 1/2) mile radius and on
historic and cultural features within 200 feet of the
preferred location of the proposed development plan.
❑ A written summary as to whether the proposed
development plan has the potential for a signifiicant
impact or not. The review of significance must include
specifics related to the scale, magnitude, duration, or
likelihood of the impact occurring.
Certif9cate of Appropriateness
L Any conceptual mitigation plans for the prefierred
location of the proposed development plan.
9?/9i/2023 t� 9Q49 Regulatrons Area & Activiiy Revievv Sub�;�itial Checklist
�j ���� �e���i���i ir�����a�����
Checklist & Materials Submitted
Review of pre-application materials: 2 weeks.
j Meeting wili be scheduled if app�ication and materials are determined complete.
Staff Findinqs
After the pre-application meeting, the staff will furnish the applicant with written comments and
recommendations regarding the proposal to inform and assist the applicant prior to preparing the formal permit
app(ication.
The stafF inay provide the applicant with a"critical issues" list which will identify those critical issues which have
surfaced in the pre-application review process as issues that must be resolved during the review pracess of the
formal application. To the extent there is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of these issues, the opinion
of the staff may change during development review.
14 Dav Comment Period
Upon the Director deeming the application for a pre-application area or activity review as complete, written
notice shall be mailed.
The Director shalf not issue a FONSI determination pursuant to Section 6.6.5 for at least fourteen (14) days
from the date of mailing to allow for any person to submit written comments for the Director's consideratian.
Determination Timeline
The Director shaN make a determination with�n 28 da�s fioilowing this preapplication review being complet�d.
The �8-day timeline includes ihe 14 day comment period allocated for neighpor feedback.
1;1� %i2r23 -' f�� 9 R,egulatror,s Area & Ft�tivrty Revie��.� Submittai C�`:¢cKirst
5) Determination of Applicability of Regulations — FONSI
Full P��nit NOT REgUIRED
If the Director has made a FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, or FONSI, a permit pursuant to these
Regulations is not required. However, the proposed development plan may be subject to a different Land Use
Code development review process. If the Director' s decision includes consideration of proposed mitigation, the
appiicant must provide to the City a guarantee in the f�rm of a development bond, performance bond, letter of
crea�it, cash, certificate of deposit or other city approved means to guarantee the completion of all mitigation to
be constructed as shown on the approved development plan.
; Full Permit REQUIRED
If the Director determines a FONSI is not appropriate, the proposed development plan requires a FULL permit
and is subject to these Regulations. The Director shall provide the applicant with written comments, to the extent
such comments differ from comments provided for any conceptual review, regarding the proposal to inform and
� assist the applicant in preparing components of the permit application; including a Full Permit Submittal
Checklast pursuant to Section 6.6.7, and additional research questions to address common review standards
pursuant to Section 6.7.1.
The Director shall provide the written determination to the applicant by emaii if an email address has been
� provided and promptly mail a copy of the written determination, at the applicant' s cost, to the applicant and to
property owners within one- thousand ( 1000) feet in all directions of the location of the proposed development
Iplan as determined by the Director in their reasonable discretion and shall also be posted on the City' s website
at www. fcgov.com.
Appeal Process
All findings are subject to appeal as outlined in Chapter 2, Article II Division 3 of the City Code.
Applicant Acknowledgement:
I have reviewed the City of Fort Collins 1041 Regulations Application For Permit. All documents submitted are
complete and the A City of Fort Collins 10�i1 Regulations Appllcation For Permit nave been incorporated into the
plans. I understand that submittal requirements not sufficiently addressed or defeRed may result in an incomplete
submittal and/or added review time.
ApplicantSignature: _C.���/ZiGG�V Date: _7 �� 2
Phone; _�-I�SJ, L.�+3t���Z..l Email: VI�tC�.�y��!/liW'��t`��.l.C_)�
11/17%2023 8 7049 Regulations Area & Acfivity Review Sub�nittal Cheekflst
City of
FOrt COII'
�ns
De�re�o�m�nt ���r�ew
Praect Informaticn Project Type:
Project Name: ����yl�� ���� �.r �,�f�
P�oJect Description: �orYy�=GT�d� �.� ,� �°�,�o��
,�ri" �/�1�'°�c 2u�F'- ?T1 /}�' �`J�rS!'.a�/cS �"��f/�
�lrv�:
Location Description ! Address 1 Parcel #: SW' L'��✓� a�eG'
�` Qrv' ! a� c� m� 2� �[�2�zt�
Major Cross Streets: �'r¢f''7,�i� ��o f- j�/L�'��
Zone District: N �� -� �r�� .��,a,�� /,v�G, �� �
Plat (YINj: � Modi�catlons (Y�Nj: �l�- (#)
Redevelopment (YlN): ���
Affordable Housing (Y1N�: �%�`"("/o)
Dates•
Conceptual Review Meeting Date: � r�
CDIZ#
Nelghborhood Meeting Date: _ �f/A-
HearingType: /a�/ �l/ �r'z��,�r.e�—/lj�i¢
Buildin� I Unit information
Residenttal: Square Feet
CommerciaL• Square Feet
Industriai: /�3 Square Feet
8uilding Floor Area Ratio: ' ,�
�(atfed Area: /v /�
Number of Uniis:
Single•Famiiy A hed:� Single•F mily Detached:�
Two Famlly:� Multi-Family:�
Site/Area Information � �f�
Res tial Ar�; gF
Commer ea: g�
Industrial Area. SF
Mixed Use Area: SF
R�gnt of way �ec sF
Par�cing and Drive Area: SF
Stormwater Detention Area: SF
Landscape Area: _ F
OpeNOther Area; g
Gross Area: SF
Flcer Area Ratio:
�►pplicatior�
Acres
Acres
Acxes
Acres
acres
Aaes
Acres
P��s
Gross Density: Net Densftyr.
�wner Applicant Information
Name: /'r�r�'ars�..•s ���re�r�,�►...� (�/ir�2 �s� �.
ad�r�s: �"�s� s'��� �D�� ��
City: F��r ��,�- s Stat�:� Tip: �'�'•�
Email: e�l�/�'��,'� E�C i� �%.� Phone; �d '1, �/-%$S�
Consultant Information
��
NamelContact: �.�'i,f �?,�i,..f`
Organfza�ion Mame: _ ..��� y !J'TiG�rY L'arrv�7,.��
Ai�I�i:SS: � ��lf� ��L�N ��/ � G� T
c�ey: �- �'l� stS�: �v z�p: ���.�
EmaiL• c� ����.�.t��%�d�° �� Phone� �'%.�'�3'�'� �
���
CERTIFICATION
I cerGiy the infortnation and exhibits submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this appiiq6on, I am acting with
�he kno�vlsdge, consenf, and aut�ority of fhe owners of fhe real prope�rty, as those terms are defined in Section 1-2 of the City Code (including
oommon areas lagelly connected to or associated wtth the proper[y which IS thB SUbjBCt Oi thiS applfC811oR) WIihOUt Wf10S@ Cp(1SLftt a11d 811�10[ify
the requested acdon could not lawfully be arxomplisf�ed. Pursuant to said authority, I hereby permit City officials to enter upon the property for the
purpose of inspection, and if necessary, for posting of publie notice on the property.
Name (Please PRINT): L Q,r Z QS I�V� , I
Address;�/�L Sn PG] 7�,�-i,r� - .�
Telephone: _( �� p� 2 2(o �� l O� I 2 I
Signature: (and tltle showing authority to sign, rfapplicable)
Ema7:
�
� CERTIF'ICATIONMUST BE SIGNtD. a
Development Reyiew Cen#er - 281 N College Ave - Fort Collins, CO 80522, DRCoordCa�fcqov.com
.�., .
Type of Request
P/ease indicate the rype of applicafion submifted by checking the box preceding the appropriate request(s).
Additional handoufs are available explaining the submittal requirements for each of fhe fo/lowing review processes.
❑Annexation Petition with Initial Zoning (ANX) REQUESTED ZONE:
Fee $5, 825
❑Rezoning Petition (REZ) REQUESTED ZONE:
Fee $4, 800
❑Planned Unit Development (PUD) ❑ Overall Development Plan (ODP)
Fee: $54,475 Fee: $11,150
❑Project Development Plan (PDP) ❑ Final Development Plan (FDP)
Fee: $27,675 Fee: $21,575
Basic Development Review (BDR) Minor Subdivision
❑ Fee: $96,900 ❑ Fee: $2,300 subdivision only, no land use
approvals
❑Major Amendment (MJA) Minor Amendment (MA) / Change of Use
Fee: $18,975 ❑ Fee: $1,500.00
❑Infrastructure Project Extra Occupancy Unit
Fee: $13, 625 ❑ Fee: $2, 025 per unit
❑Addition of Permitted Use (APU) ❑ Modification of Standards (MOD)
Fee: $3, 500 Fee: $1, 675 ea. standafone
1041 Pre-Application aka FONSI Application ❑ 1041 Full Permit Application
[Finding Of No Significant Impact]
Fee: $55, 000
Fee: $25, 000
Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) Additional Rounds of Review
❑ NO FEE ❑ Fee: $3,000 charged once for projects that
require 4 or more rounds of review
City of Fort Co!/ins Development Review collects Poudre Fire Authority Development Review Fees for
the above requesfs. Applicable Poudre Fire Aufhority Fees would apply at the time of application.
Paymen4s ean be made by check, debi�credit card or eCheck.
Check: Make payable to "Cib/ of Fort Collins." Mail to the Deveiopment Revie�v Center; 281 N College Ave, Fort Collins; CO 80524, OR plac2 ir the blue tlrop
�ox loca!ed at the �resi side of ihe building.
Cartl or eCheck: lNouitl be processed online at fcgov.com/CitizenAccess
Debit/Creoit card pa;�ments include a canvenience fee of 2% +�0.25 added to all paym�nts under 52,500.00, and 2.75% added to all payments over $2,500.00.
eGheck payn�ents inclueJe d conveiiience fee of 50 50 aUUecl to all payinents.
'Please advise yourDeve%pmentRevrewCvvrdina.'vras to itihich payrnentmethod willbe used
R?s� � to c_a ��c,2. 'r ,.% UeveloUntent Review Coordmator i_;- v rin :�.� pro,%eci ir,formatron and _cr.; _� �::: _ __ � to be ,. a�:.'.
�'evisecl 10/2/2023 2 Develo�ment Review Applicatra�
UTILITY CONSULTING
Project Information and Design Narrative -
FCLWD 30" Trilby Tank Feeder Water Line
Connection
City of Fort Collins 1041 FONSI Request
August 7, 2024
Request for Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI�
The Fort Collins — Loveland Water District submits this narrative and the supporting application materials
for consideration in the City of Fort Collins' 1041 regulations process. After significant alternative
evaluation, and conducting an Ecological Characterization Study, FCLWD respectfully requests a
`Finding of No Significant Impact', or FONSI, from the City of Fort Collins based on those portions of the
project that are subject to City review.
Purpose of Project
In previous engineering studies, critical treated water infrastructure investments for the Fort Collins —
Loveland Water District (FCLWD) were identified to increase resilience and redundancy. These
investment recommendations included construction of additional water lines and finished water storage,
including the proposed construction of a 6 Million Gallon (MG) tank and 30" Feeder Waterline. These
facilities increase the reliability of the District's existing facilities in the same location.
The Fort Collins - Loveland Water District needs to increase reliability and resilience to its customers by
constructing a treated water storage tank, just north of the existing District Trilby 4 MG water tank. The
proposed new tank will be located on the County's landfill property, near the County's proposed Solid
Waste Transfer Station (see attached Exhibit 1). The location of this project spans the land planning
areas of both the County and the City, and therefore require coordination with each entity for those
components within their respective jurisdictions.
Reliable water and water infrastructure is critically important to society, and is supported in the Larimer
County Comprehensive Plan by ensuring that Larimer County "facilitates the provision of utility and
communication services to keep pace with demand and meet the needs of residents" and will "collaborate
with and promote coordination of utility providers to deliver affordable and reliable services, share
resources, and increase efficiency." The County further supports water infrastructure planning in the
County's 2019-2023 Strategic Plan's #1 Goal: "Larimer County works collaboratively to ensure adequate
public infrastructure is available to support the needs of our growing community." The cooperative nature
of the proposed FCLWD facilities and the infrastructure needs of County residents has been established
in a recently-signed Memorandum of Understanding.
Similarly, these proposed facilities are congruent with the current version of the City of Fort Collins' "City
Plan" (Comprehensive Plan):
�, Addressing infrastructure priorities: City Plan supports collaboration with local and regional
partners as development occurs to address infrastructure and service needs in areas not currently served
by City utilities. (Vision/Values)
„ Policy LIV 1.3 - COMMUNITY EDGES Collaborate with Larimer County and adjacent
communities to plan the edges of the Fort Collins GMA. Provide joint guidance on factors including, but
not limited to, future land use, development referrals, infrastructure planning, development standards,
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs, fees, community separators and the preservation of
open lands. (Principles and Policies)
Stored potable water ensures that the FCLWD can serve approximately 60,000 existing customers
(including City of Fort Collins residents) with water during high demand periods of the summer. Water
Ally Utility Consulting 1 � Page
tanks also ensure this stored water is sufficient to provide a buffer of emergency water during these
crucial periods of hot, dry weather. Emergencies can include unanticipated disruptions in water supply,
disruptions to water treatment processes, water transmission line bursts, and fire-fighting needs. FCLWD
territory spans portions of the City of Fort Collins, the City of Loveland, Larimer County, Timnath, and
Windsor. Accordingly, the fire protection agencies of these areas depend on the District's ability to
construct this stored water. Hospitals, schools, and other primary social services also depend on this
water service reliability.
The District's Mission is to respond to growth within these jurisdictions and ensure that necessary water
service is reliable and uninterrupted. FCLWD is not an agency that governs land-use, and therefore can
only respond to the growth of the region through responsible planning and construction of infrastructure.
With sustained population growth over past decades, the District must increase its stored water tanks
and the waterlines connecting them to the Distribution piping system. Without this increased storage and
waterline connectedness, District customers will suffer a reduction in their potable water reliability that
becomes apparent during unplanned emergencies.
The proposed 6 MG Trilby Tank and most of the proposed 30" Feeder Waterline are predominantly
located outside of the City of Fort Collins, on land owned by Larimer County. FCLWD is coordinating
closely with Larimer County Planning for these portions of the project to satisfy the County's review
requirements.
While much of the project is not subject to review under City of Fort Collins 1041 regulations, a small
portion of the proposed waterline facilities are: the connection to an existing 36" FCLWD waterline and
approximately 100 linear feet of 30" waterline. This portion of the project is proposed for construction on
lands owned by the City of Fort Collins. After coordinating with City of Fort Collins staff (Kirk Longstein)
in January of 2024, FCLWD was notified that this portion of the project was subject to 1041 Review, and
possibly eligible for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). In addition, CFC developed a Submittal
Checklist and Guide, specific to this project and submitted with this narrative report which outlines
`Required' and `Waived' 1041 submittal requirements.
Alternatives
Two alternatives were developed to evaluate the optimum connection for the proposed 30" waterline to
connect to the existing 36" FCLWD waterline, as illustrated in Exhibit 2(Appendix). Both of these
alternatives are also illustrated with a'/z mile buffer as illustrated in Exhibit 2, and used to perform the
Ecological Characterization Study. Exhibit 2 and the Study are also included in the Appendix.
This option connects the proposed 30" Tank Feeder Line to the existing FCLWD 36" waterline in the
northeast quadrant of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and W. Trilby Road. This connection will occur in
the easement for the existing 36" District waterline. From this location, new 30" waterline will be to the
west, and under Taft Hill Road via a bore and casing pipe. To accommodate this new pipe, and the
excavation required for the bore pit, additional permanent easement will be required (Appendix Exhibit
3). This approach will also ensure that vehicular traffic is not disrupted in either Taft Hill Road, nor W.
Trilby Road. In addition, traffic to the Larimer County Behavioral Health facility and the Larimer County
Landfill will also be maintained at all times.
Ally Utility Consulting 2 � Page
From this intersection, the pipeline will continue to the west to the Proposed 6 MG Trilby Tank. This
portion of pipeline is not subject to City of Fort Collins 1041 Review, but rather will be under the review
of Larimer County.
Advantages, Disadvantages, and Unknowns for this option are outlined in the following table:
Benefits
No disruptions to traffic during construction
No impact to traffic/access of Behavioral Health nor Landfill
Minimum excavation requirements
Future repairs will offer minimum traffic disruptions
Manageable bury depths of pipe (6-8')
Groundwater is not anticipated
No cutting of new Trilby Asphalt that the Behavioral Health
Project installed, west of the intersection
Minimum risk to new CFC traffic signal facilities and loops
that were recently installed with Behavioral Health Project.
Reduced traffic hazards to construction personnel
Shorter Construction window for this portion of the prolect
Im acts Unknowns
Additional permanent City of Fort
easements required Collins 1041
Excavation in Natural Areas
:� -
This option, as illustrated in Exhibit 2, would include connection to the FCLWD 36" waterline in W. Trilby
Road, west of the intersection with Taft Hill Road. Due to the depth of the District waterline in the
intersection (greater than 12'), this alternative would require significant excavation to connect the
waterline and lay pipe to the west within the asphalt paving of W. Trilby Road.
Benefits
No City nor County 1041
regulations are triggered
No additional easements
are required
No impacts to CFC
natural areas
Impacts
Significant disruption to vehicular and
bicycle traffic due to deep, open-cut nature
of excavation.
Significant detours required for bicycle and
landfill traffic
Significant repaving of entire intersection
likely required
Due to depth of waterline, future repairs to
waterline will be significant and likely impact
traffic movement (detours) for up to six
weeks for repairs.
Groundwater is known to be at these
excavation depths (16')
Cutting and replacing significant portions of
new W. Trilby Asphalt (Behavioral Health
project) will draw ire from County.
More expensive
Increased traffic hazards to construction
personnel
Longer construction window for this open
cut approach.
Increased risks for complications
discovered during construction could
extend construction window, and extend
traffic control frustrations experienced by
the public.
Unknowns
Potential unintentional disruption
to CFC traffic signal facilities
Dewatering of contaminated
qroundwater from Landfill
Ally Utility Consulting 3 � Page
Based on the above analysis, the Primary Design Alternate has been selected by the District and
proposed for City of Fort Collins review in this process. Detailed design has been performed and is
illustrated in the relevant design sheet included in the Appendix. This alternate also requires additional
permanent easement to be granted to the District for installation and maintenance of the proposed 30"
pipeline. This proposed easement description is included in the Appendix.
Ecological Characterization Study Summary, Cumulative Impacts, and
Potential for Significant Impacts
As illustrated in the prior tables, the Primary Design Alternative offers the greatest number of benefits,
and the fewest number of potential impacts and is proposed for the City's approval in the FONSI finding
as discussed below:
��:
Since the proposed (preferred) Primary Design Alternative occurs outside of the road rights-of-way,
temporary construction impacts to a small area of the Fort Collins property will occur. This will be limited
to connecting to the existing 36" waterline, and digging a deep and compact `trench box' excavation for
the drilling and boring equipment. As a result of this proposed excavation, an Ecological Characterization
Study was conducted for this alternate. As outlined in the attached Ecological Characterization Study
(Appendix), no concerns were raised regarding this Alternate. This includes threatened or endangered
species; no waters of the US or wetlands were identified; no migratory bird nests were observed; and not
recorded cultural resources were identified within the requested radius of analysis. The Ecological
Characterization Study also recommends avoiding excavation activities during certain times of the year
to minimize potential impacts to Western Meadowlarks and song sparrows. Based on conversations with
City staff as a condition of any potential FONSI approval, FCLWD will ensure this work occurs between
September 1 and March 31 to avoid impacts to foraging migratory birds.
Construction field activities to perform work for this alternative are anticipated to last approximately 8
weeks. Temporary impacts are anticipated to be minor, and limited to construction and revegetation
activities. These impacts include surFace water runoff during precipitation events, potential groundwater
discharge during construction, prairie dog and avian habitat disruption, and revegetation of the area to
ensure restoration of the City's natural areas land to preconstruction activities. Permanent impacts are
not anticipated.
This alternative is proposed within the City's existing Cathy Fromme Natural Area. The proposed
easements associated with this Alternative are approximately 0.21 acres, to be located adjacent to an
existing FCLWD 7.3 acre (approximate) pipeline easement. This existing 30 foot-wide pipeline easement
is parallel to the Taft Hill Road, from the Trilby Road intersection to a point approximately 2 miles north.
While this design will increase the FCLWD's easement within the Cathy Fromme Natural Area, the net
increase in easement is small: approximately 2.9°/o.
Furthermore, this `new' easement is primarily located between the existing FCLWD pipeline easement,
and the existing Taft Hill and Trilby Road rights-of-way. This area offers lower value of open space than
uninterrupted open space to the northeast of this LOD. Any future Taft Hill Right of Way widening would
similarly reduce the impact of this proposed pipeline easement to the overall value of the Cathy Fromme
open space, and any Ecological impacts associated with this alternative. This alternate does not
significant impact a natural feature, nor have the potential to significantly impact natural habitat corridors.
Ally Utility Consulting 4 � Page
This Alternative also features a drilled boring under Taft Hill Road, which ensures that vehicular traffic is
not impacted during the anticipated 3-week construction window of this work. This is particularly important
given that:
• This traffic signal is the `first' traffic signal that northbound vehicles experience in nearly
three miles of high-speed travel from Loveland. This mitigates potential risk to construction
workers and other vehicles posed by inattentive, or distracted drivers travelling northbound
on Taft. This is especially important at night, with increased potential for impaired drivers
encountering traffic control, lane shifting, barriers and cones, etc.
• No detours are necessary for this alternate. This eliminates public frustration associated
with multi-mile detours. This is also important to large vehicles, and vehicles pulling trailers
to the landfill. Under the Alternate Design, west-bound Trilby drivers attempting to turn
north to the landfill would be frustrated to discover that this movement is prohibited. Drivers
with trailers would be doubly-frustrated then, when being forced to drive further west on
Trilby (a dead-end road) to find a spot to turn around. Likely, drivers would elect to use
Behavioral Health entrances and parking lot to turnaround, frustrating everyone involved.
• This intersection is important for bicycle travel, which would be unaffected with the
proposed Primary Design Alternative.
• Since there are fewer existing `other' facilities (pipes, traffic signal communication and
sensing loops, gas lines, fiber optic lines, etc.) associated with this Alternative, this option
offers significantly less risk than the Alternate Design, which features deep, open-cut
excavation in an area with known groundwater and numerous other facilities.
• Due to the shallower depth of excavation and shorter windows of construction,
groundwater risks are lower with this alternative. This reduces the risk and cost associated
with any groundwater treatment that is required through CDPHE groundwater dewatering
and discharge permits if naturally-occurring or landfill contaminants are encountered.
• While these proposed pipe facilities have a design life projected to be 70 years or greater,
eventually repairs or replacement will be required. This alternative offers the greatest
flexibility and least impact to future residents and vehicular traffic. This will become
increasingly important as area population grows, and roadway templates and traffic loads
correspondingly increase.
After construction is completed, areas impacted by construction activities will be returned to
preconstruction condition. Therefore no cumulative impacts to this area have been identified.
While the location of this alternate is within existing City natural areas, the additional increase to an
already-existing FCLWD pipeline easement is small. As a result, no potential for temporary or permanent
Significant Impacts have been identified for this Primary Alternate.
The Alternate Design would occur within the road rights-of-way. Due to the depth of the exiting 36"
waterline to which the proposed 30" waterline must connect, this excavation would likely exceed 15' in
depth. In addition, groundwater is known to exist at this depth, further complicating the excavation and
stabilization plans. This would result in significant excavation footprint that would significantly impact the
Trilby roadway, east of the intersection. This Alternate also includes similar impacts to the intersection,
with significantly increased potential complications due to the congested nature of below-grade facilities
Ally Utility Consulting 5 � Page
at this intersection. Lastly, the complicated nature of this Alternate would extend the construction window,
and therefore extend and increase the risks and traffic control frustrations associated with the project.
Since this Alternate occurs within road right of way, it does not trigger 1041 review regulations. Therefore
no Ecological Characterization Study was conducted for this Alternate.
Construction field activities to perform work for this alternative are anticipated to last approximately 12
weeks. Temporary impacts include significant disruption to traffic and bicycle patterns, increased risk to
existing utilities, surface water runoff during precipitation events, potential groundwater discharge during
construction, removal and replacement of City of Fort Collins Trilby Road asphalt paving, removal and
replacement of Larimer County Trilby Road asphalt paving, and disruption in traffic patterns to Larimer
County's Landfill and Behavioral Health facilities. Permanent impacts would include repeating these
temporary impacts under repair and replacement activities by the FCLWD on the proposed facilities.
This Alternate has significant impacts:
• As the `first' traffic signal that northbound vehicles experience in three miles of high-speed
travel from Loveland, there is increased potential risk to construction workers and other
vehicles posed by inattentive or distracted drivers travelling northbound on Taft. This is
especially important at night, with increased potential for impaired drivers encountering
traffic control, lane shifting, barriers and cones, etc.
• Significant multi-mile detours would be necessary, frustrating large vehicles, and landfill-
bound vehicles pulling trailers. West-bound Trilby drivers would be doubly frustrated when
being forced to drive further west through the intersection and finding that Behavioral
Health entrances and parking lot are the best options to turnaround. This would also lead
to frustrations experienced by Behavioral Health customers and employees.
• Bicycle travel would be affected during construction. Potential multi-mile detours could be
extra burdensome to cyclists.
• Significant `other' facilities (pipes, traffic signal communication and sensing loops, gas
lines, fiber optic lines, etc.) associated with this Alternative could be impacted or
inadvertently disrupted during construction due deep, open-cut excavation in an area with
known groundwater and numerous other facilities.
• Deeper excavation and longer windows of construction in groundwater increases the risks
associated with this alternative. This is compounded by any groundwater treatment that is
required through CDPHE groundwater dewatering and discharge permits if naturally-
occurring or landfill contaminants are encountered.
• In the future, repairs or replacement will replicate these impacts to future residents and
vehicular traffic. This will become increasingly important as area population grows, and
roadway templates and traffic loads correspondingly increase.
• This Alternate requires impacting new Trilby Road asphalt that was recently installed with
the Behavioral Health project. Larimer County staff and Commissioners have expressed
a desire to avoid impacting this new road way with this project. Cutting this asphalt and
intersection to construct this pipeline would likely draw public criticism and ire.
Since impacts of this Alternate do not extend beyond the road right of way, no cumulative impacts to this
natural area are identified. Given the above analysis, Significant Impacts are expected with the Alternate
Design.
Ally Utility Consulting 6 � Page
Permits
For either alternate, the additional permits will include a City of Fort Collins "Permit for Excavation on
Public Property in the Right-of-Way"; a CDPHE Construction Stormwater Discharge permit; and a
CDPHE dewatering permit (if groundwater is encountered). These permit applications will be initiated
after the City's 1041 evaluation, and therefore have not been started. No federal permits are associated
with this work.
Conceptual Mitigation Plans
As stipulated in the 1041 checklist, mitigation plans for this review are limited to the LOD or "Limits of
Disturbance". This area is defined as those construction areas within the existing and proposed
permanent and temporary easements overlaid on the Cathy Fromme Natural Areas land for the preferred
Alternate. This is illustrated in Exhibit 2 in the Northeast quadrant of the Trilby / Taft Hill Road intersection.
City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Section 6.27.6.5 lists criteria to be used for determination by the
Director of a finding of No Significant Impact. As discussed previously, additional easement and
construction activities would be associated with the preferred Alternate, however the scale of these
impacts is small and temporary. In addition, the impacts associated with the preferred alternate are less
significant that those associated with the Alternate Design.
The following mitigation plans are proposed for the preferred alternate:
6ira��ic Y�isruption, �mpacts fio Landf�l� Customers, and I�edVucedl �tis�C for Construction 1�orkers an�
�.��,�,���,; �r��r����,2��
As discussed previously, this project will significantly increase reliability for FCLWD water customers
through the installation of additional buried water infrastructure. The proposed approach mitigates
temporary and permanent impacts by limiting the impact to vehicular traffic, bicyclists, landfill customers,
Larimer County Behavioral Health and other adjacent neighborhoods that would otherwise be frustrated
by construction within the Trilby and Taft Hill roadways. This approach also mitigates the concern and
expense of cutting the newly installed Trilby asphalt, west of the intersection. Safety, for both the public
as well as construction workers, is also mitigated by this proposal. These mitigations will be realized
during the proposed installation of this infrastructure (temporary) as well as future repair and replacement
activities (permanent).
Additionally, the proposed approach reduces the potential (negative) impact of existing utilities within the
intersection, including City of Fort Collins traffic signal communications systems.
� � �� � � � � ��� ; � �
: .. :
To ensure that the area is returned to its preconstruction condition, the top 18" of topsoil will be scraped
and stockpiled separately from excavated underlying soils. Silt fencing will be placed to limite runoff
impacts and soil migration during construction activities. After construction activities, the topsoil will be
replaced to the top 18" of the ground. The disturbed areas will be reseeded with native seed mix per the
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas specifications. This includes the City's preferred mix for prairie dog and
bird habitat. After germination and establishment of the seed, silt fencing will be removed from the site.
Ally Utility Consulting 7 � Page
J
All construction activities that encounter groundwater are under the jurisdiction of the Colorado
Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) groundwater discharge permit system. Groundwater
encountered and pumped from the excavation on this project will be governed under this State of
Colorado system of notification, permitting, and monitoring. Groundwater with contaminants will be
discharged to the surFace only through this permit system, which has controls to ensure contamination is
removed through onsite treatment techniques prior to discharging to the environment.
1' I � i ° °
Colorado Enviroscreen (an Environmental Justice Mapping Tool) was utilized to determine whether this
project was within an area that has been identified as a Disproportionately Impacted Community (DIC).
This tool was developed for Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) by a team
from Colorado State University. As illustrated in the in Appendix, this project is not located within an
identified community, using the latest database (May 2023). Therefore no mitigation techniques are
required for this project related to DIC designations.
7, , �
As outlined in a future permit, construction activities will be limited to between September 1 and March
31 to limit impacts to avian resources in the area.
�_�i,.i.11.�i ��,� �� u'��_ i v��ui'!. ll° .._ ;_�u
As outlined in the prairie dog management plan in the Appendix, prairie dogs will be eradicated only
within the LOD immediately before and during construction activities.
Based on conversation with City Staff, relocation is not a viable option for temporary or permanent
conditions. Given the existing prairie dog populations in the immediately surrounding area, City staff is
not requiring permanent prairie dog extermination from the FCLWD for this area, after construction
activities have concluded. Allowing prairie dogs to reestablish habitat in this area after construction is
also a mitigation technique.
�:
Construction activities will be limited to between September 1 and March 31 to avoid impacts to foraging
migratory birds. No additional conceptual mitigation plans, beyond returning disturbed areas to
preconstruction condition, are envisioned. In addition, City-specified seeding mixes will be used to benefit
both prairie dog and avian habitat.
Conclusion
Two alternatives have been analyzed for this project. While the Alternate Design is burdened with many
disadvantages and impacts, the proposed Primary Alternate offers many advantages. Mitigation plans
have been developed to address the minor temporary and permanent impacts that have been identified
in collaboration with City Staff.
No significant impacts have been identified and therefore, the FCLWD respectfully requests a FONSI for
this 1041 application.
Ally Utility Consulting 8 � Page
UTILITY CONSULTING
Appendix A
Vicinity Map
PROPERTY OWNER:
LARIMER COUNTY
PARCEL BOUNDARY (TYP.)
���y '
PROPOSED
6MG WATER TANK
PROPOSEDFCLWD PROPERTY BOUNDARY
LARIMER COUNTY
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
i� ���
/ �
/
/ �I �°�
I �
� �
� �
�� /
\ I �— � �
� ( 30AW 30pW � —
�---\�� ( I
J
� � I �
� �_ I) II
��--
... ... ���� ------- I I I
� � X ��
�� --�
��
�
��
30"W
��
// �
- ''�� ,
PROPOSED 30" TANK FEEDER "� �,"`' W °
—�
O O O
� /�i��_�i��W
�"w �— I EXISTING TRILBY R.O.W. � I� ��
—30"W I I I � � � "
30'W 30"W 30"W 30"W 30"W �+-30"W 30'W _ 30"W 30"W I 3@�W� — — — 30'W
r---- I � � � � ��..
� s,
■ i
� I
� �
�
I
1 �
� I
�
I
� I
� I
� Q
10
L.L
J I
J �I
� - i
1 � =,i
I �I
�I
Q
I--
�I
j � � I
i �
�
/ / - ` � \
/ �
� �
�
� � I
1
1 � I
�
� '� i i
i
' �, i
�I
� ,
�
, ,
� , �
� ,
�
, ; �
� �
�_ �
— � i i �
��
�����n li � I ����'
_ . _ �I
„ �_ _
� ��I
�
/ �.UIIU �
%
ii� � i
�
♦
i
� 2"w —
= I
❑
�
` �� ' �'��'� 1 i
,�'., r � $ � �
• � � �
.�,: , ��.'= ..., . .. . --. - - - -
.;�.- . . , . � . . . � ..'. �.�._ . �� . . � � .�. �. �_._ -
. �. � . �.; � . � .. . . . . .. . . . , _-
- -- � �
-- -- --- -- - ��
- . . __ -- - - �'•
��� ��
� � � �-N-� � � � Nf� � � � �-N-�� � � ���� � Y Y
W. TRI LBY ROAD ;
/
PROPERTY
OWNER:
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
.
��
0 75' 150' 300'
SCALE: 1" = 150'
EXISTING 4MG WATER TANK
PROPERTY
OWNER:
MACEWEN
PROPERTY OWNER:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
0
�
�
PROPERTY
OWNER:
BOARD
OF
COUNTY
COMM.
S
�
0
% �� • • � • �
.
�1
II
/
�
�
�� �� �� ��
:�� ��� � ���-�� ��-� - _ .� � •
_ � �
�
O
�
�
w
�
� O
�
/ Q
J
� >
PROPERTY
OWNER:
EI CHHOLZ
%
�
�
�
�
� z
J
J�
�
z
J�
�
J
; �
�
�,,
�'�
�P o�
��
��� ���JG
�l�i Q�Q' �5
Q �o�
o�
�
, Q
�
Z
0
�
>
wN
LL
w
Q
�
�
m
0
Z
�
�Q
�
Z
Q
�
i-
W
�
L.L
�
V
G
�
�
0
�
J
U
�
IC
�
Q
�
�
�
z
U
i
PREPARED FOR:
FCLWD
SUBMITTAL DATE:
07/01 /2024
SCALE:
HORIZONTAL: 1" = 150' VERTICAL: N/A
SHEET NUMBER
EXHIBIT 1
1 OF 3 SHEETS
(ASSUMED TO BE COINCIDENT WITH TRILBY & TAFT HILL R.O.W.$)
0
/ WILD FLOWER MRD
UTILITY CONSULTING
Appendix B
Area and Activity Review Exhibit for 2 Alternates
�
�
O
N
H
m
_
X
W
�
m
_
X
W
�
�
�
m
_
X
w
Y
Z
H
�
m
J
�
t-"
�>
J
U
�
O
�
a
�
�
¢
J
Q
J
Q
Z
O
�
�
w
a
X
O
m
d
O
�
0
0
� ,, _ _ ^--� _ �� � �� .ra• ` `
.� .
��.
. � 1
.
..
� •
� ��
. . .
r �
� ♦ ' �/�
",;j�� � � , ; ; 'r�
, � ` �, �.�. ! r ,1 1% ' '�
� ���
• , � ,, .,+►i L `
�I� S�r„
� �+' � � ,� i � , /
. ��� � • � Ir ��� ����
? •+ Y � l � � r • •
+- � 'r '.t,� �'''.� 1%
_� '
',� ' .
!' �
- - .� - �r - - � - �_ - � - �
, � � - .
i i° - - f . �- � ..�
�. i . .�r�-
T � d 7�, • �. � i
+1"- �. P, � �'
•�
-'� �� e • \ .r. a
� �. � . _�i ��G G . . 'r
ti i ! ar
� f � ♦
�' 2
� \ .
I � -.�- .
I ° r < �' ,�. .. _ i� ���'n .
�%�. 'f" ' ' \ �' �1' i • I I � -- � I I . �_a/�`�a �� � .-°� �'_ �r ,��r / ��1`�j��.��:��f��";�.�'�Ai+y, �`���� �. � • �' A � � � `.,7i jA %' �• •!�t'` ;�. r , �`_' • " �,J•+ Z.'�
r �/ � �� � � � �, y �r�� ,r� * y �►. ���1. �r� �• ,*t.�- � ti �� �I. � �: ,� �"i'��a •f � r �
l � � . � � . � 'q ♦ ) � y�
�� y y . I I �� � ' ! . •� ✓ •� .:. � � �r �,i / t' � , / y. p �"� Y �� '� . .i � � y �` � { r .f • �. �.
/ i � � � �. � -- c--- � � � � � � I I ,. � ��� �. � �..��", ���r� " �" 1 ��� � �_w �,iyi. S� •' i � / *. � ��._ v� � � ' � ��� � . � .
/�r �: � y ' ,�1'• _r�.. ��/.% �f �., , � • � � � � . +� ` ;.�� . �� �r . r ,' ' � � . , 4� � , . , • . ;'-'� '� f •
I � � � .� I � • �� ' I �A�ilr .:r ti �.Y�w � `� �0 .. �..�� �, 1� � ,�j�i� " �� �:�. • �C.. � c� ,� �"- � "„t���� • � �' � •� �. ' . ' �. . t n
�' . q+,'_ ' ' ' � i . , , x,'. - �� ♦ . . - a ,. ,+e ; ,y�.� , 1 � ,`„� . � � , � . � . :` � ,� s- �.. � . r � . � , q i � 1 1 . , . • • • 1 . .: � y `y s ♦ . • , .; ^' •I�,
` . � �. 9 `
\ �~ �j ' . � .: � , , � � � ;F, � � �r�� �� /� . _i2� r.''. . � ,.'�� ��.~ •�y��• , . �, ,+ �:� i-�,= '� � '� - _r .'� • �• _ . • �/. � • r .�1 �,,i�. `,i' ��."."i,� , . •�� •i%: •1.'i
• • 1 � I I � . - a � ' ' ��,►.. 'A�y .l ��} #Ir ����� L s : � • , Q � � �'` _ • , . ss •'r '
� ,/' ' �� ' I I. , � � I . � � �' F r �' � � .! ,� . �' �' , t Z` ' � r�� �T J 1 � �.. . , N ".•d'171. P,� �� ' , ♦ i.. � • 1`d#. �� ! ,.� _ P"��� �' • i ,y„l C� � � } '� �,i ,� �.�
- � , � . I I � �ry� ` �.'.��rk -1•���` :�� � [F T �. ������- .�s-��� .�. _+i;.,�: `j '� . �.l . . ' ��,h.i�..r�'rL �y•'� �JI+ � � � �' t•���.��� � e ..�_ 1,�"".�i
� � � ' ' F �� • , .�I ' . �� . .��L.71;. �.�..� ' `+, � .,, �' , . +k _ r�'� .. � ���-, � �! `T,� ° . �'i �= �yy.�. �,�" �1 .. ..� � , �bi��, ���V// , • � . . �1y���1� �.it � � .� • '�•���
� , I I � I � M �'�L '�i , . � + /��� : '�.K ♦' t� 6 �. T " �. -r � �I � � �' 1 �/ • �
� � ��i � . � r 4 � � � � � '.r ,�+ 'r" �' ?+ ; 'e • '�J, ,,.; �, i'�, . �; a�t� F .t ` , r / e� 'r'_, � - r �.'S '`�.5, it'•p
� ; , ' �.' . �, .. ' � ..r � _ _ � 1t. . ,� • r . . . ;, . i" . : � ; ,� Y . ,
.', -�.` _ �.V��,,; �r I �l I . +� • r i� . . Ir�. M py��" .. . .� - •i, . ,i, _ ��� r c �/a' � . . � � i , � . . � . -`� ' � �s� • . ,.► .,y�� �.�,. '�.•
. / � � � r �,��' . . / �j 1� 4�����7' . . ,'�111 �'� _ .4.. [� � .. ' { � � � . � .. •• � � R, _
� , . I .-i .. . _ ��*.l �' �' f1 ' n' . '% . - � '� . . '•
/ � � , '�' '� � . x5 r , . �'`" , .
, v � lr r � ., .a5f - �� h'' . , � ,� . � e� �� �'
� �Q I � Y _ . a }� .'
i � �r �•
�% � fi� � „ � f�"' j � � ' � ' '" s Q � yp �;� �.f y� '�`y ' . � ' ' � ;''� �;6 ' �� "� �' `� e ,fr,,�,��y - r ! ' i�C a y: � I, i�[" � • ' �,"�� �,+ ��I
� i i/ • ,;^1 � , . ' I I ' j � � �'� �I 1., �� � ��� � ,��i � .� ��y, � 4. . .. L ' � � , �'s_..�k �✓r �r - .Q„* ..�_ ,. (/;,� f` , . , *� �� -..
/j // � iiu� � �'�. s� '� • d ` ' � •' �.+�.1�'"�:�....��',� ,�:. � 'y;��
. •/ � "�J � '� , � �. ' . I I � � � � . - - ,;Qry�� � _ ""C �i." �-� � `,�,y:� w . . ' � � �i:.� w �` a •rti, . �. • �. . . .� ' ! .•r. , �i ��� . � '.'� . o� � �� � 1 .. N
. , a�OTi. �� ., • ' � � ' � . 7 % • � .. ' + ,�+ :�,,. r,t+�' � � �=;� '�` =. ��'' � `�'1�' _- . ' - -� �
• �� 1, - �. ,� �{ , " I I A � � . � ..f���,y�. � �,,�� � � �t� � � 4� � '#� ���r t � :, CATHY FF���/li�� I�RAIRIE �� •.y �r,�y .:: `, • . � «
. . ♦ �- L � '■ � � � _ � i � � { � �� i y � 4,�;,,; r' .�Frr ,� .r'p �T�e � .. '' ��.. Y��•��:1�y�V �,
� � + 7� ' ' ' �, �� �� A p'7�
.
.
,
s/ � � �. 7 1 ~ I \ ' . I I � � ` p,P': . ` �t� �'- ', � . � . � ~` . � , , ,T.�e � � i �j °:'� � �`�i ' ^ \.� .H, 1 �, A � !�a � ,!! � � .�, a' . ,.• L �- . � . , ���u
_ �C . '�..� . . ... , f ♦ r , � , � _ �Y�! J4�_�/�,�ur• �� .. t �a?�t� � . . . �� � . . . . _.�. it,►�.. �r�� r . . r-,�� � � � . .�. .i� .�.i: . . .
� .- - -- - - - • t ��, i . �. . , , � . , . � ; . - - ' +- . � . t �- !I
•t \ I ,I Tf' 1 � . , ♦ . . �• _ � _ � i.� � . 1 � 1� ' ,r, .
� _y_ ' � r. � , � — — — — — — � __� — � . '� �� � ` ' •• ` � •� -!`+ y . / • r' � ,'� ,�•- f t ' " � • ... 4
, _�� , -- �- , :.;, , 1 � - - - � � �,: �. #�.�� .� . :�:�- . : , �,, � . � � � � � ; . _,.
� ' I .:, , , . . ' ,; , �, . � : r r,. " t � � ,� . , .,�' �,� s � . �. � �� .+ i
, � + �� l'� �� � � � � I '� 'ir` .,.. • � .� . � tl `i� I � ��i � � � � �+�,y � � � r .' .
�'- ,� r I ,� � • � ;< r • � . .• ,� ' ' ��t'� �� , af • ' .• � '�II
. � ` � �,� r- I I � ✓ � � � � B F ARD F '� . - . ''_ . ' .,��.: ��. �� ,.,.�_ {� , � }, ., �, . : ., �.�r�
� -- � y� r� � O O ' . ' ��' '� �___,;y,, � - •�
. i1 '� , � ` , '� I . •..� P �' '/. ,,/' �' �+� 4 r � + � - � i'� ,�• /
• � . � , • � I"! � _ � I I I 'r � � '.+ � ' . � � " �. p . ° �� Z.,i:� ti , � �� .���r�ve' �� i'� � . . ♦ . . � K � •�� �- . �' �',� °
� . . . . . • , , �'[' � �� - � � 's d . I ' � � � J A �%► .�
i v , � I . ^ ' .� ! . .t i � . , . R �.'.
k.� • ,. . , �
� �, � I � COUNTY � t ,�
� - ��� � i ' �. - ' I I -� � � � � � � � �� i .. _ r � , � � ��, , ;i � . , �-- p , � , ;� .�
- - -- - - ,/ i . n . � I � . � � �� . COMMISSIONERS `r . , ? • . ,� ,� ��.- ,�. ��' a � � � "; _ •�,+ ��,,: .• � .'���►�'�� ,�,
�� l... y � � 9 f
� � . ` • . I I �� � � , � . . t ►�e,- ' . � � �. . . r � � � ��� c' r c- ),�Ii �
� � � `I r b�•. • '� � . , ! i`` � ' • • I � ��• ' !. ' `� 1
; � . , � � ... � - , � I � � � �' � PARCEL NO. . : �,M r � : ��� . y , � � � -'�- *j��; � . '�:�:�.�y,�� }`����.
J ^ � \ � ' • ; , �-`" T'" - 1 � } �y ° tY`� tiY�7.�'•.. ♦ I �.�„ �-/ I �!�
. � � , I ' � . ' ,� � . � � �. � . �'�"�#. �i . }
„ ; " % �- . � I � . � � . r � �f.
, � , . �� � ., r � � � �� � � 9610000904 , . .:;, _ ��.�'� .: '�!`�� �s� " . -'" � :
. . _ . . .
� � .. `.� , � �I
� � - _ e� , � � � - = � - �,� . . . ` . ' , �� � e�� � �� ! • r, • � ' � � �'r j ►
�� — �+� ,� _ . -_ � � � }'�.-� � �. � � � ,� ��� ,i t .. � , . �•: .� . - - � ,�-l1' . CITY OF FORT r, •�"' ��' � � � , '
•1 � � � � � � �',� ,�,�� r �� �`� �:-: r� .y�'.��- .�� :tiw ,•; r, + � • - � � �
�• � :�� � � . -�:� I � � ; r ;, � . �I` � ,• �;� `�'�- �� _ �� _'-� � � � COLLINS �•. : . � .
li � . � �� . i� • p Y ` � .� � Il. '1� � _MI •'` �.!_,/ r ��' � • � .
� '� f� � � . I I 1 � � .8,� . ( •�. �f'w'ilr. �"� ��! � ✓ }".. 'ti 1 ' �. ' 1'•
� , � i' � �,� i� ' � ,� . � _ ," > ' o •,,' �,� ,�.�'�' /. ' � y� . �+ fi � �-: � �a� PARCEL NO. �-_' �
, � _ r . � � � I , . _ �: I . .- •��: / ,� '.�� � � � � �' �" .� �. r f � .. � "M.�. 7 '� � � ��� • � � � � _ ��,�+� . � % �j � - '
: - � ��� � . . ` �� . .
/ 4. r . t , ,� � . . __.t . _ ; � •�c V . � • +�' • . 1 • . _.:., f I
,
� ,/��,r .s . ,.� 9610000929 , ; .
� � LARIMER COUNTY � � � � ..�.. �►,,� . •� � .. , -._ , � ,��. ,, .� ,�' !�� ,r�� _ �� . �, .�:�., . �. ,�
�, �
� li � � , � yr � -. � .. . . y " ��1,� . . � Y { , - � i . � . , �� ,,,�r �� ir' +5 ! . tw4., q� � �} . ' � / "� �
. � � �'r - �- PARCEL NO. �' . I � � � � `� � _ � ' � _ �," , , -. ,. . . ~-., � �r� l�f�. , � � � . �r - -d1 Y { ti tv �, a '• f � � ..1�
r , •� • � �I i �y � �� f. � � �i���I y ��. i��S ���' �' ��,.. L�y +�� fi �` �����v� � �t� r .:s -�� � ��' ;✓O�. ��� ♦.'� G
. � e' 9609400901 � �� � '' � � -� � '� I . �� ,r�'��; •�'y,g5y'�0' _ � .,��,.� "'ti . ,�, � � , , ' �_, _ ;: �
/ � �; '' r ;' � . r _ `� ' i.
+ � J ;i � s , •' +�,� � �: j � , � ,
. .
� . .
. � .,
� � ,
• �. . �• % .
11 _ a 7 � . �
� _ ^ `�e , r ' � r � � - �' �� I �!: � � ' �.� - f . • �_/ •. � i ✓I / �- ' t.���ti f' y
• � � '�. . � I I � I� I}�� ,� . � , . . ♦. .. r -� �� � � _]� I, �� • .♦ :'��ili
� . � � I � � ` � -�f . . ., �. •"� �� ,� � . .;, - _ < • .. �1'. � '�„-:, a - �
� F �1
�e � � - r � � �� �. � " � ' . - ii �� � �'� .�• ' . � ��. �� �� �'� ��� � _✓��� �' _ . , 1� �� ! . " '. .
�. �, ' � ' ( a-J� . . ,'���Yi �� / I I r ' I 11 �� � 4^ -[ i . • �� ~ �,t 1 � �� �. _ . � . . • � • �• 1'�%� . I
.� � � �-�i, � �i » ' F� .t, � 'a t � ' • ,,/`'.-i ' , , +�.
. _..; . T —.� �..`� , . / • .. �R �� � � EXISTING 36 WATER � + � .� j�� � .� �- ,�,�� �' �, ��, ' � , �•-_ � : .� , ,, �
�� �
,t_ , T 1r � � ti r, � y � �� .� , �•t � � . q�+�� � + �� •�� .i's' � , �o �' �
.
/_ "►� �r . . r. , . . � � .
� . � � � •
. � . �•. �
. , � . . ,. , • . � � � �
_ _ ► . . ."r
, . , • � �' � `'� i � � �.• . s
, . �
. � . ♦ , a
_ . � -
., k _ ' .�. � l � r � I . .. 1 �i' .S.' .. ' " �� �I ' � ��� � � •-I
`,� .* / � � � �r � � 7: . � �' l . * � • . •. ` � • �
�w . � ��'� . . }�'� . ' � • . �
s , ,a. � . . � � , . , '4
� •... _ � ��+.r t�`� -
i v J . �
� , l .� �� . r, •� ��I I I �� �' ' .. r ..��. ' � � -�' . . ♦ � `� ��r I • :,.y�� -� n �F�=��: �7\ '�' . �� �. �• � fr����
r �,. �j�e� � � � . �� , '�� {` •� �,�•, i ; , '�. . � � , ,
� � � •• / � • � ' T .��, I � � �.: , � ����'t� .� �''f �Y .; r , � ';. �� =s ���� �,.
� : � , : • , - , �, � ~ , , • ,• ,p� . � ._ , r•� .;�'� -4� _,! . . �i -�-
� � � � � � i � � �,` r � '.�*'� �� ,�. � . ,' . � ��f ��% � �
� �, ,, � �� �,�,� �� y = f �.I I � ,j i � � i�.�.. �"�.�^ ��✓ �� �- �� ;, , • � , i � �`..�� ' .
G �� • o ( , 4 • �-
_ � - � � t.1' �''y' _ � • � ♦ � ' j - v' �� �i � ' + •
. � . � J' ' . . . .
� 1 � f, � r � � � r / �� I I "� � � ' � . � I . �. ' "v .�',� � p., �� �;,,�.� ^�;, j, {,r � ,�; � fi�" iF ` ' ` � � ; ,,. • � , • �
r I �.� ( � I � " � �' '+' � �r � 'A 1 ►'• �� yl
� • r. • • : �
I ' ' I ' ' '' � � } i -� h + . , '.. , , " , � ; �f•},�, � ; � �� � '� `� ';�"�, [' '+ �r � ' '�•�+ ��► , '
. f ' � . � � i
I �i'. - � � , „
. w
' r � . ,,�
. , ^� � �.' . 1. F _ . , •
. � . '•G - ,�''` r�
� � / - } w , i I� . � ,���. _ , �!ti . ' a ,►.Z .�+�.� �,� .. � � r,�% ��,�,-, :' j S��']� '.~A, �^`I' •, � "�i i-�
, � � � ,. � r � � , . � ,J•. ; .. �'�, .d .� � . l . .�� /� .
, ' . 4,� .i . I � .
• . A` t
` � �
. . ► i � } . , `� �' II �� • � I� 'iV1� �i � ,�y ��
. I I . . '�
�i � r
.�I . ' r �
t � . i � �
I I �
. . . ' �i -'• . 1 , w i�% . 1�
�'�, � �
� ���� F-: �� � � ' � I I � I � 1 � � I I , ,� � � .� � � I, �.'��" •� �;�Y � �. �� "� ��� .� �''� � � � ! � � '
� w II � - . I I � } � 1 � � . e = - - + e �. . I � : � . �
p E � �. t' � � I S � ,. , ,_ 500 ,� � � I � � � � � � 500 . -�� . - , ; - � . ,✓ - _�� *� � - ,. , •_�• ��: �.� - .,
�r I � i. I , .I , I �i I i I �' r � ,��. • If , :� �1�. .. . s �r�� •1 'r '� �. ` •,tti
� � d1 C � � � � � �, � � F i 1 � . _ . . � ' i i , . . , � . .� " • • ,, �•'r,
.
� � ,.,.
, . .
I � __ PRIMARY DE I N ���..� I I } ►. � ��; :,��. t' �'�,;,:� � ,:,-"; ._'� ���, � ` • . '`ti � ��. " .
-- -- --- -- -- I I �I � - ' �. � `V r ' �.+ r + �•�, �
�
, .
� ' , S G � ' - , . '� ,,, � �,: � ,. , �'. �,�� , ;L�;:;
�j� ^ - C , � � � , x i i r . + � �� ,,�. � 's � . . ' " _ '.� � �� ..
F ' ' � � I . �i I _ � �I • ~ � � �.: � I \ J • ., � ��
�
����� F' �1 � _ • , '� . � , ��. ♦
.����� � � 7�� - . -- - -� -- - - -- - - � , • i ' r---- -------- � • ' �. ���f , ♦: ' ♦ . . ' . . • �)• �: " ��.
� � '� ;�'' e f >
,
� � � � � � �� - � � I � � _,j �. , '; T i . �, � ,,� ,�, �,! f _
�: r��, r��� �������� � � F� 1 � / q !� .' �' f . . !� `-' �% '1� � ��
� I � �' Ilf _ ' `*1 ��`- _ _ � . �� I I � �������������.���� ✓ -la�r� i �I I X � f ' , � � .�. -' . . Af �i�, � � . / , - � � ti. ��� /��- -� � * � .. v�• �` � f ' � d'�� .
� � I �k� L1� _ • n . - I I f � !'M �4 ,i�'R � I u , I ♦ . I � � . ".� ' M� � �; ��, � / � �;�t' � �., . . . , rjr'�,� T�� _ �.'�.� �r�' • �t.:�
� �1► �MMMMMNM�MM� MM MMMMMM � r�� ML_MMMMMM ��M��� � � I - I i i • _ � •,�,� � ,' '�'�4,' • . r'#' ��'.� � . �.'�>t.
�i �j/' '� / � • • li , _ � �
,N�MMM �� N_.LM� �� �M �...��,r M�M � i � .r �� --�-�`_: ��� � � � � � - , � �. . ,%� . �� � � � ,
. � s
����_MM MMNM M MMMMMM
MNMr _ M � � �
M —
. � � ``L -
� /f� ' �
� �
�, � i .
r �1�� �` � �"1 1 1, ..., �. � ��� _ - �,r�, - j ,, ����y �� . ..., � . � ._ ��, .. . _ - ------ ---- ---------- � � � � . . . � ► , 8 % � � .y�• ,r�' r� � �
� . �� .T , 1� � � � 'c � � � . . . . -
. . �v°y --- - _ , -- � �- . . ._ , � _. ,. . � � .. � ' , _ I � . _ .. ., r �''�y . _ �:�- 'A �: _� � 'J'�.���,11'+ .r�:. • q�� � � '.-- �`F +� ,se �t"•� �,a . �..}".f�A.�.:at r'+��•�v�,� - �.:.—.�,ar _. . a�,
�� . �
� y, ,
-� . . � �� . ..
.
- . • ... .. - . �{<.
��.
., `. � � � — _ -'_- I I � J/y,�' �� .. . . � � � J ry' � '
� __�___ � . - _ _ - _ - - ___ - - _- ___ � - - - - - - - � 1 � f �i 1 ' _ � 4. �,.. . . ��� �Y s. : � a�.a+ � . . � ' �� �'�.� y� ���i�� �� ��� , r��' ! �����
. �y`
�.___�____ ____ -____-___.�.-. � -�� f -. — — - -__.__��� �-� ��� -� _ � 3� •-rl _ �di-: . ���. �iJ�� � , _ _ � ,.��.�w . ' _�i1
- - -� - - - - -_ �___.__,_ ��.��ss.s.�__� .. � . ���...
-- --- -- -- -. � I �I � .. .1� c
1
,
_ _ _. � �
-- ,, � —,� � � I L. '7 ' �� � — �� !` �' - _ _ �.o-. � _ - .. "`.ti : r- r- .�<_� J�,.._ _ ���
- � �I� -I. . H ���. � '- � . �;. � .; _ _ . .. . . ` � - - _ - - - - - . - — - _ - - - -- _ _ - _ _ - � -
«
- - -
� —� .v �'� � ,
I � r..
• �� - '- --- - � --
. .r �. . .
.. .
_ .
.
., . � �,�_._ /, ,+ ...� �r� � - ---- - . . - . . � .
--- --�---=— —_— — =— �--__ — _�------ �`
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �
— — — — — — = _ -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
� ...J
_ . --- �y
'�.- -� ,_ , . � -a�� d �.w1
- - - _ ,� -�A� - GRS- -/ GP,S GA - ' -mc�r �� �� �� �c�c ��c �<� v �� ��.: -.s
A �� _ . � _ � _ . _ _ _
� / � �,..� � - - _ ..�.-- . - - - - - ', � ----� - —
„ Y�
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � -
� ...-- � ,� � --- � _ , _ _� ��_ ..,,.. L,_,. �.��., .,., ,,.�.. _ .,... _
.�. '�— -- �--- _,� ,�--- _ � ;' --�y_ —__ _ _ __�—____��_-- ---- --- --- �--
�� ---ra�—� - � �--��_ - �x= —�-- - -�-�- - x- �- - -�-- � -. - %'��x- �x- xa -�-- - - ;�: -_..,E,�.�.,�;� �=- _ 1 - � r, . � .> -- � s
,,: , ;.ar-r.--e• �r��= :; - � , - �y • - � ,�
. , ._
� ., � .
�" , ��'. � � ��+�� � �� � � . ,,�; _ � ii� � _ � .- e � .�' ' . _ ,
. . - , , . � _ -
� ,� , . � ,
. , . . � ' • �. � .� ' * • � , w . -�
� i, - _ _ �,r . � �
- ----- ------- ------ — --- —=— - ---- — --- ----- — ----- ---- — - -- - — - — --- ---�— � �- -- -- -'�'R�'��=.+�"�-�'!' .'� - -- --- -- _` ` , '� . J -
y r. , ��f � �' �� �j �, *', * �.. � �! 1
, , � ' . _ . �. �. �,�.�
-�M'. - _- _ -. .- _- _- - __ - - __ - - -_ . __ _._ -_ - �f� - _- - _ -_ - - -. -'- _ _ _- _ - _- __ - - -_ -. _-_ - __.. - _- - - `_ _��\ __ _- - -_ _ � � `� _ -� � �rr��� �.✓�1� _. �. R� .. �r'. ._�T'�a "�'•'��,��.. .r' sd. �� - r ,,,, i r .
r f �� _ � . - .��:. • �.�,�r ' •
� �' � alY�- r a ���,f���iff�s �� . � �� ��� .r % � �`^ �'
� , . � . - ` . . � h � ,* ` •. : �} .�{� , ti,' i «_. "�S \ , - - T f ' b � � �'� � t � ..�/ .. ��- - ' "1 +..�� � � • • � � �• � � - �� i� 'i �
I.,r+ - . , � j:L . -�r > , �� � � s . .
�I! , • _ �� / �� �� �Sa � � y �� � ♦ � � . � I' , ' . � . - . . ..,�,�� rr��y�'�- Y� -.� �. � � _ , .N � .��� � , �`� � � ¢ ,. ` � L , -- .� . . r`- • � � �
;:� �� � _ � .r � ' � �� �� ��' � . ,� 1 � r ���� �� ���
:� r �,,, �...� „ � .•�- "' , ; c . _ ', ��I ALTERNATE DESIGN �.,,.. , _ �,' � � t � � ' ` �'.s"_ �_ ' ' �' - . � �'�
� �i �^ �t � �, �, I _ � .. �i � � . �1 , 7, ` � - - -� � a • � .-` • � , . -.�� � /�' 4, t r � � �. , �� `„ f f►,
, � � � � � . r �.�,:� ,�� �• .. _�' � � F � � ,��� 1.•�� t if~� . ! i� ' �f�,j, {� . .j r . � i . - ��� .
. . �► �. ; , r:a � . � , �`. ,7 - . ; .�,%� �, ,Y . � . � ` i - , � _ .. '� R*, • � � y� �
.w � �r 7. s • s '� 4 M. � , "• ,� • �. . 7 ' .� ' � � �r ti ' y, : � � �� � � � � � . � � . �
, .Ir - 1 t • � �� `'A `1" �:'t�. ,���•-�:� • ' /�•;�����. •fi ���r. r, .► `•�,. ,.. �.i>`" , �, 1�,���' � •♦ � � Ir- � . - 'r ..� +�'�' y � ♦ � �
��� ; :9 �� Y - , : ' � � t . `. � � f i � � f . � i e � • lY . � • �� • ' s.` _ i+ �1 � � • � I� `!� 1 �i � � = � . �i r" � � • • ' • ri* � � I , : • � � , � � "t Is � 4 � �� �� . � i � \ � �.
� ` - i. � ti � �• ��J►�r '. � � . ��r', , . . �. ' �, �� ♦ , • `' ��j •�y ��.... 7 �j 1 � � � .•.. •�' �. � I�� �� .
Y �♦ +a � � !� �.'�i �* � �' 1 ��� • • ♦ "� � 'tr t � s. �� � �� ` �1 � � � � 1 � � ��� s �� �♦
��• ��.��.::� � �� .j�r` . ', ' � ► � � ��� • s� � � le� . ' . '..� tiO ����� •r���R �•A �S 1/.��� -I'� "� ��-. '� •.• .R � i.�. ' � , �. � '� ' 1 . • r `�' �
`•�' �i�!' "'1. F 't `r,�►�'+' � ",�� " �' � +%� • /Ic1 "..�. . • '�� � � �+; , � • � '��.�Jf'1p,•t ��; �'4! �'.�.. ''�4 � � � � ��«�, -, � ✓ ��' �:� �. +d, ' � � � , �5�. . ' � �. . � • ' , r t r/ S
�q "�� � y'A / ,� ; r , t � � ��� � ,�' � � ``,i.�� �, �t �• y .� � �� � �1�
• . . � , �I ,
�, ~' ��'�, ,•M � �a .�' � °is �,:�. ' �° � � .>, ' ' t � � , A' .' ✓� 'i.y ''�� �. �,s �'�� ��r: �,��,' •��. � _ .�•`�'�� �'^ y . '.�1-��� _ I 1i�w y'i'��� �ra l. �'� '� .. � • ��' �� '� � �- • I • � �
� � � • � f � 4 =� f ,� r `. � , f . � . �/j'� ' � e g� Z d 1 � ' � !r� ' y ,;11� . _ ��' _
.> � �I ii- ;� t ��� 1. >. • . . . • � . �� � •� �'�._.�_1���;.�l���• _ ." •.ir � i �> �I . '�,� , _� •♦ _ _� � � _� `. . 4� / _ - - . . .
� ' �„� � ' ;. t . �►„�! ,�. � , �.,,� , � , .. � � �y • r,.� _,� � I � � E I C H H O LZ � � . � w s d
� '� �`�•�c :. � �',l►f.-'� . ,:.1 ; •�r� �.� '.c�;,.�' !� � . � .� ,, , v� • _• .,�'a .�-. CITY OF FORT ,� , '.�:� a�'!� + � �� � ':. ., � � :-r� +' •" ; , ,�. S � '� ' - KRILEY . 1
� •. �� y� ' 4�� I •� r � '� . r�� �7 . � �� . �r � � �� �. � '�'` �.� , �,+�. � _ � � a �f' I ���•` �J �' • . ' , �� � �'a�� 1 - �f►' �'a� /+��ri
�. � �,, �, . "��� .,, `'�`a,!�� g,• �,' •�s`',;�`• ,Y .�► , �• , ,, �,.�» , � • �°�,� y �if+�� "yt� : , ;,r , � COLLINS +-,;. - �.��� -� �, •,� , � � :3 .f �• FAMILY TRUST i , ,,`�. , �, + ,� , , ,. � ; ,,,;�;�.",:- � �� NIKOLAUS/JESSICA ,"•�,,,,,�%�
��•�� i�`. � � ? rr�.'�. �c; •; ^ �' : , °, f�' s � ' +, f:.. 1 � ;� �, ` •� � �- ,��j� � �� •.� i7� � ` ,• a, rt • r�� � . � �. _ T -� �, � �t . -" � � �0 r� ��`�!
� � • '' • . �� ;� 4. • r � �- t, � s�+► �"_ �`. . �1► .f. ,�w. �}. a _• PARCEL NO. }- �, - I y ` ► t, -.:�
� �' r r~ �� r PARCEL NO.
, .'� �_ � �,� •.. �,4 • ,�; ,�t, .-. A., - •d,, ►�.r �. A ��?� • _ , � .•� i�, . ;�, � � PARCEL NO. :. • . �.,-�:!�� ��. � '�' �'" "' - .. f' • , . -� - ���i
� � t '' -� _ ��,,� I ' '{• .�' � �' " 9615006701 a,�'� �_ •
� ,- , .� . � �cYt.,.�►z , � •,;�::� :r� :� � ; �,, -ti, W�,. � J��� �"� �;,�,,i. 9616000901 �'� •�. '��"` ,� ,`'�"�' � _ ', ': - '� .. � � � !� � 9615006702
j - . � ..� . , , t .� ��j � , +�`� � :, ��•'� _ i � � � 4 ,� , I . � • — - � � �,
� .s. ''% � j �� ' � � 1 ' +�` ,fi � v • Y• r' ��'4 .; r, �)' � � .. � � � � � � � r � ,< < j � � '� � ���I �. � ;I : .%�. � � � � � '�� • /� � �' ! . � + ' � '1��
<�"�, r •L '1�,. � ` �.: �� . •� * • .. , s ` � '`� �:6 -,� �,�, �'j �-��. �..� ••.fM.t" s ���+'� � �'•�'� . ♦.� 'f� � � �.f � •s� ��f��� „ �- 'l. � w ` � • , r . # � . � ;� � . �. � �1• �'� •R� • �.
�i_ -� � ,s � 1� -�', �• �f l� ' �I r/ M�li � ' -l.� � '� � � � �y � • . r �: � . . � � �.:� I � �S�r �rr �`'� � �� _ � . • � � � �
♦ F '� �.. '/� .��' � �.�` �+� �s '•��'/�r# -' .� i�•�� .�... �, �� yI�y�" + �r �i� .1��•• � • �C���f ��' ' - s. • � �- � � �,i�` � �' �. � � . �-� �•'a�,� 4/ �� / ,�� � i i��i I� ' + . � ,�
,`j � . ;i / '{r�' � ,� . . • ,,,�! . � . � . . _ �- . � 'r. :
Nr'': `. , ` '-'% �if�� . N � �' `• •�:�y%ai+!. y�'': • •; '�Olf OT� I�I DG � ►r � . ,. i�'�� � �I�- �� �,/. � .` • •4y,�,�,��, , • , �� �� ��,, *_ � , �. I � � . � . ♦• �. ,ti•, �.� � , R , . . � _ _ �t t , y /' \ � "' ♦ ..` . , '_
� �� � •f i " f ►R AI ��1 ���� � � �/ �1 � �."f �� w �rr �, • ��`��•�'��� ; �i� ,�• !1 �*', •r �� ��S- , ' �,. : T' - + f. . � � � . �r� .`.
� � � � _ • ~ � •' ' `.
� � � ►, � '�E� �.4 ��IATURAL ARE�: �.'�. � ' ��w� �.�'? , ,�, ; ` • � , � � _ . �� t'►' y1� ,;, � / ..
� ,; �� I �'i 4 `� i � l� � R' .� a j �. �• y � � + - � r''� '1rTj�� �i�S��r./� � � +- *' � i 1 •�1 � + ��
� � ,. � - ,� +►, .s .. — / - ` � � • �' � ?� ,. - :�: • �-. � �. � � � r r
qq, � � �,..: I . . 1R ,,�;,�, % r - �.� r', ' _ 7 . 1 i . • • • r�1 . /� �' 1 � . . _ .�,� �,,r�,.�. . .,r-. ..--t_. f`�� . _ r � � ;;,-�' � L - .
y�� ` � � � ..;��� •►•;�� �-:f,,�` �� ��`� t���• ���' ��� �� �� �/,' • ' �' � '� i� � ,� �•� �i � }� t =� � � � � 1'1�' ~1 ^ r�i. �%.�. +►�.I�}��� � � I if � y� f �� I'
p�e� y� �� /�°��s� � ��►� -�I�_ .i� ��" ���} •; � y��I'4 � ' � �� � st' t� GI��`~�� � . -;�r--�� ' , . s,,, T� • �'� � �� J��
� ` �- `•� f � � �� � ' • ' ���� � If �.;,f 1 � 4',' � . I �� 1 / • �� �
"`-�� 1�.~•••'� ��►�+ '� � �✓ !�� ,� � P r'���r�r � � j' ,� ��ti,,J4-S♦ • °'��� .� ' • �� . .1�y � f _.���r,l.4 � A �� '� � •�-�; /~ � f� • �j _ ,
i'. i � � ._ /� '-1 j1"�t_ •• ;�� 1 ��( 'i►+ � r,- ' �r�� ♦ F . .��V- . .� �"",` r � : � . ,. + � �
� � rs � . i I \
�����, ro, ��:t0' �♦!'►.e �_�" .i..f.� .�_ �� �� •�'L����' � �:�I �L.�` �� �'t.� .'*� ��11'.��, •+ a, ' �• � �' �• �s' r .1 _ , -.� 1-►1 � i � •�K•��� , \ .
���/'� // .�
�� �.. �� � �4+I��4 � . .� ��Y � ���' r �''f . � ��� .r�t-��� � , �. � �i ' I �. , �' � ��� . . r � � �� � � �t.
a � �� � �•
, 1 • a �� 'I► �'.. r �li�.» � �, +� i _ ���'�` �' � } �`��� }i �°�• �"�- � �� � ��,� ' •'� l,. 4 �' �, `►'+` f �� ! .r� 7°• . I �_ f � , �. � ., � ^ . •�; ' +rF-. . • . ' � , - � �� �1/~ �y .� �� '�, _Ie � � .'�
�, � • � �� � � r�.+� �51, � � ♦ * � .�t- , � �L i '4ti. . �� . , .' , � , . '�_ >
j s ,�y • r � � i .r / � t •, '�
s. w` ��' �, • . � ti - , + �. ♦
' �-,r �.• �. � • . J !r'�I� �`�'•�, � j� ��, '* r�. • ' �} - �•�"rj � �� ' . „'�,., � , y'• � .yy���'` t i_. � � l! �,�r .�77�}. r � , a :I . � ' . �) I ' 1 I) ♦ • l , a .rAr��� . � •.i' � r r�� �4 � , ��f f
�� w��c,���y7�� -.'i � '. ;r� '�r �r'. �`��e����������� ' w� 1 �� v��j• �•�., ,�r � �•/. � � ^* •�.� ' � � ��'' . �. '�f4�A�7�j. � � ' y `l �� .�` r
' Nj� ., � � . � �� .1. y! � , a ,,� „ , � � � t , �� . S . . r,� � v� �
�I � V�.` � *'I �� � y ,�.�� �` � �r i � �•���i w� t • �' / 1� • r r �� � � r �� O� '•� � y �� : � �/,�J � , � • � �. � �_ � �. ^ �' � ," � r�.. � t� ,- � :+h . �.. -. " '�" � • � . - d �;y � �y�r y � � � ' e � �" ♦
I .; +i. '� - • ,[. , _ s . ' �S'�. f ��, � �.F� 'j I :� �`��,:� �� s '�,A' 1.' •'v�, -ti� t • 4� v_ 1. . . w �`S J � � '�� . y ' � ��y �` � ti � 7 � ♦ % �i _ 7 � ♦ {�'+ K' � +�
�� + . � � .da_ �,.. • ��� �;.��� � µ `- w r � i'l u � �' _. A,,,�_ � -{,4 � r" , � , R � _ ��, � • �� ` •� .:. �� .n} !�' . ,��`
��'� 0 30' 60' 120' rs 1''� • `1 . f` �� � ��.- • I
` _ '� .. .y�i ` `.` �-• .� _+�'_o=i. lR�i • � �''_ , _ _ "' -�,Y � . �. � , - t, r �• .'0 ..
� li�'�-.�'�I�fl'�',�,f,`r?�'��..'�,'�.�^ ,�. �.{'�� ` .,�,�'�;,•�f�� , r . ,� �� . I - �1� '� . ,� - , r.�, � • `�'y,•,. .. _ y �� � •��v ` --.�..�' ,+,�E: �,
� SCALE: 1' = 60' r ' , ,, " ` . . ,- ., - •.. _ - _ r , . . 1 , �
� 'r� ,
� �.� • y. t.�, ��` ,} r �a�. _.j ` �. '� , A� I � � r !y � �,� '-' r �' '��.. ri � . �1 � 1 � �� _.. • j� `i
�II'� . .� �. - � -� .;-r �, T w� - �� � �,�� . r`,1.' , �_ , ..,���.,�..,n � ° �'�� F ��• : ��� � �� � � %. _ ����� fl'3��,�� , j`L ` •
�-, •�'f ♦� ^r\� • ♦ ��� ,y ,n .��N �. � '' ; �.
� � i'~ i �' • � ����. '�����jjr � r .."M .�'y �� �i ,Ir � . .� ,) r� �o� • �y�• i '�
+ ��� ' I �� � y • �,� � ' . �:�t�' ? •� ' �` �► I ' '��� •�'� �. ' �
�' E' ��.�.Aa t.. . . . � s� � -! �, . � .. ' �Y� . �t!►�`� �' . ����� ..� �, '�� �.7� f'�.r�• A�'��:• • _ � �� �,•t����
6 ~ •� .� �' � ��� , ' ���_�'� ��� � � �f � � � �t ' � i' � � �� - �' � r I � i - _ _ � �1, � - �
:a
� �( � ��i, ,� � . �/ ���,�e� � •�/��;�� . ,�.YA �s � H � �Irl+: .� ,��. • � 1 �e'� �� ����y'.�� .: l <+� � � 4J � _ . �� . � +� � "e'� , �.[
�� � r i''y ` �� ti �, ti . �a..- s Sbi► :A _ �� - _ �1-y„ r. � �- _ � � 1 .'� �_ �� � �.�� _.���� � � � � ,'�_ Y � �i+ � ti - - � � �T':. � ��.
l.�
� J
J�
l/1
�
� u
�
�
�
`�
�P o�
��
��� ���JG
�'�Ci Q�Q' �5
Q �O�
��
�
� �
�
Z
0
�
>
w
�
W
¢
�
}
m
O
z
� e
�
U
W
�
O
I..f�
�
Z
�
v !
Z
Q^
I..L
X
W
�
Z
�
�
�
m
J
1..�
�
0
�
J
U
�
�
m
2
X
w
�
�..�..�
�
W
�
�
�
�
�
U
Q
W
�
WA'
1..�
�
�\ PREPARED FOR:
FCLWD
SUBMITTAL DATE:
08/02/2024
SCALE:
HORIZONTAL 1- 60' VERTICAL: N/A
� SHEET NUMBER
EXHIBIT 2
2 OF 3 SHEETS
UTILITY CONSULTING
Appendix C
Ecological Characterization Study
TRILBYTANK PROJECT
FINAL ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
PREPARED FOR
City of Fort Collins &
Fort Collins - Loveland Water District
PREPARED BY
Sarah Itz, Senior Biologist
RESPEC
5540 Tech Center Drive, Suite 100
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80919
JUNE 2024; REVISED AUGUST 2024
Project Number 11787.23001
I I�)
�
RESPEC.COM
REsp��
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................................1
2.0 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................................................................................1
3.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .................................................................................................................. 2
4.0 STATE LISTED SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................... 4
5.0 CPW HIGH PRIORITY HABITAT ........................................................................................................................................ 6
6.0 WATERS, WETLANDS, FLOODPLAINS ............................................................................................................................ 7
7.0 MIGRATORY BIRDS .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
8.0 PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................................................................................ 8
9.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................................. 8
10.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Federally Listed Species of Potential Occurrence in the Study Area .........................................................................................3
Table4-1. State Listed Species of Colorado .........................................................................................................................................................4
LISTOFAPPENDICES
Appendix A — Figures
Appendix B — Photo Log
Appendix C— IPaC Species List
Appendix D — FEMA Firmette
Appendix E— SHPO Data Results
Appendix F — Preparer Resume/Qualifications
FINAL ECOLOGICAL CHAAACTEAIZATION STUUY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Trilby Tank project involves the addition of a six-million-gallon potable water storage tank for
the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District. The new tank will be a concrete tank entirely embedded in the
gentle hillside. Excavation will be required to construct the tank, which is anticipated to disturb 2.5 acres, but
the area will be refilled with necessary grade changes by transitioning the uphill and downhill grades to
create a uniform depth of backfill over the approximately 220 foot-diameter tank roof slab. This disturbed
area will then be re-vegetated. Access to the site will be near an access road to the Larimer County Solid
Waste Transfer Station. An additional limited gravel accessway will remain around the tank area.
It is also anticipated that a 24- to 30-inch pipeline would be constructed from the site easterly within the
Trilby Road right-of-way (ROW) to just east of Taft Hill Road. The Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area lies in
the northeast quadrant of the Taft Hill Road/Trilby Road intersection, and the Coyote Ridge Natural Area lies
in the southwest quadrant, both of which are City-owned land. The portions of the natural areas within 500
feet of the proposed project's impact area at the Trilby Road/Taft Hill Road intersection is the study area and
is included in this report for inclusion in the 1041 application to the City of Fort Collins.
This report will document existing environmental conditions in the study area and effects on federally- and
state-listed threatened and endangered species, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and migratory birds as a
result of the proposed project. Figures of the property are attached in Appendix A, a photo log is in Appendix
B, and the list of threatened and endangered species is provided in Appendix C. A FEMA national flood
hazard layer FIRMette is provided in Appendix D. Additionally, State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO)
data was requested to determine if any recorded cultural resource sites exist within 0.5-mile of the impact
area. Data received from the SHPO is attached in Appendix E. Appendix F contains the resume of the field
investigator and preparer of this report: Sarah Itz, senior biologist at RESPEC.
2.0 VEGETATION
Vegetative species found within the study area during the April 10 and May 22, 2024 field investigations
appear to be typical of previously disturbed and overgrazed areas. Introduced and native grass and
herbaceous species, such as common mullein (1/erbascus thapsus), field bindweed (Convo/vu/usarvensis),
cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), musk thistle (Carduusnutans), Canada thistle (Cirsiumarvense), aster (Aster
sp.), prickly poppy (Argemonepo/yanthemos), and smooth brome (Bromisinermis) were observed. No trees
exist in the study area. The only shrub species observed was big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata).
The Larimer County Weed District follows the guidelines of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act (CNWA), which
defines "noxious weeds" as plants that are exotic and invasive. Exotic means non-native, or weed species
that originated in other parts of the world. Most of the weed species considered noxious in Colorado
originated in regions of Europe and Asia with a climate similar to the Rocky Mountains. Invasive plants are
those vigorous enough and competitive enough to crowd out desirable plants and, in doing so, decrease
native plant diversity and wildlife habitat. The increased vigor and competitive ability of a non-native plant is
�
FINAL ECOLOGICAL CHAAACTEAIZATION STUDY
the result of being introduced into a country with different grazing animals, predatory insects and diseases
and without the limiting factors that kept the species in check in its native land.
The CNWA lists weed species considered to be a threat to the economy and environment of Colorado. The
lists are categorized by priorities:
• List A species are of the highest priority. These weeds are not well established in Colorado, are
potentially a large problem to this state and require mandatory eradication by local governing
agencies.
• List B species are common enough in parts of the state that eradication is not feasible, though the
species are still recommended for eradication, suppression or containment depending on
distribution and densities around the state.
• List C species are widespread and well established.
Several noxious species — musk thistle (List B species), and common mullein, field bindweed, and cheatgrass
(List C species) — were identified in the study area. No List A species were identified. To comply with the
CNWA, responsible parties shall treat each noxious weed species according to state and local management
goals. If the goal is to eradicate a given species, then those plants must be prevented from producing viable
seed and any vegetative propagules treated to kill each individual. If the goal is suppression, then the given
species must be prevented from spreading onto neighboring properties. A single growing season is not
enough time to effectively meet these goals. Each noxious weed infestation should be managed in
perpetuity or until the seed bank has been exhausted.
The City of Fort Collins' Natural Habitat and Features Map was consulted to determine if any natural habitat
or features are located on or adjacent to the study area (Figure 4, Appendix A). This map shows Native
Grassland in the area that would be impacted by the proposed project, and Native Grassland and Wet
Meadow within 500 feet of the impact area. Based on field investigations, the entire study area can be more
accurately described as native grassland with some introduced/noxious species, as described above. No
areas of Wet Meadow were observed in the study area.
3.0 THREATENEDAND ENDANGEREDSPECIES
According to the species list obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for
Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website accessed on May 23, 2024, there are ten threatened, endangered,
proposed endangered, or candidate species that could potentially occur in the study area (Table 3-1). The
IPaC results also indicate there is no critical habitat within the study area.
�
FINAL ECOLOGICAL CHAAACTEAIZATION STUDY
Table 3-1. Federally Listed Species of Potential Occurrence in the StudyArea
Species Federal
Status
Gray Wolf
(Canislupus�
Preble's Meadow
Jumping Mouse
(Zapus hudsonius
p�eb/e�
Tricolored Bat
( Pe�imyo tic sub fla uus�
Eastern Black Rail
( L ate�allus jamaicensis
ssp. jamaicensis�
Suitable Habitat
Experimental Gray wolves are one of the most wide-ranging land animals. They
Population occupy a wide variety of habitats, from arctic tundra to forest,
prairie, and arid landscapes.
Well-developed plains riparian vegetation with adjacent, relatively
Threatened undisturbed grassland communities and a nearbywater source.
These riparian areas include a relatively tlense combination of
grasses, forbs, and shrubs.
Proposed Mostly found in forested habitats.
Entlangeretl Note: this species only neetls to be considered ifthe project
includes wind turbine operations.
Threatened Marshes and wet meadows across North America, including riparian
marshes, coastal prairies, saltmarshes, and impounded wetlands. All
its habitats have stable shallow water, usuallyjust 1,2 inches deep at
most.
Piping Plover Threatened
(Cha�ad�iusme%dus�"
Whooping Crane
(Giusame�ican�
GreenbackCutthroat
Trout
(Onco�hynchus cla�kia
stomiasi
Pallid Sturgeon
(Scaphi�hynchus
a/bus�"
Monarch Butterfly
(Danausplexippusi
Endangered
Threatened
Sandy lakeshore beaches, sandbars within riverbeds or even sandy
wetland pastures. An important aspect of this habitat is that of
sparse vegetation.
Potential migrantthrough LarimerCounty. Useswetlands, lake
shore, and wet agricultural fields as stopover habitat,
Cold, clear, gravely headwater streams and mountain lakes which
provide an abundant food supply of insects.
Pallid sturgeons are adapted for living close to the bottom of large,
Endangered silty rivers with swift currents. The preferred habitat is comprised of
sand flats and gravel bars.
Candidate Areas with blooming flowers, and especially milkweed (host plant).
Occurs along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, high flow
channels, and moist to wet meadows along perennial streams, It
Ute Ladies'-tresses typically occurs in stable wetland and seepy areas associated with
Threatened old landsca e features within historical flood lains of ma or rivers.
(Spi�anthesdilu�ialis� p p J
Also found in wetland and seepy areas near freshwater lakes or
springs.
Habitat within
Study Area?
�
�lC
�
�
No
No
No
No
Yes
�
Western Prairie
Fringed Orchid
Threatened Moisttallgrass prairies and sedge meadows. No
(P/atanthe�a
praec!ar��
`These species oniy need to be considered under the following conditions: Water-related activities/use in the N. Platte, S. Platte, and Laramie River
Basins may affect listed species in Nebraska
3
FINALECOLOGICALCHAAACTEAIZATIONSTUDY
Field investigations were completed on April 10 and May 22, 2024. Few flowers were blooming that early in
the season, but wildflower plants such as mullein, fleabane, asters, field bindweed, musk thistle, and prickly
poppy were starting to grow back after winter. Later in the summer and fall, the flowers could provide nectar
for monarch butterflies. However, if during construction monarch butterflies are present, they would likely
move away from construction activities and find foraging habitat elsewhere. Once construction is complete,
the disturbed areas will be planted with native seed mixes and will eventually contain blooming flowers. No
effects to monarch butterflies are anticipated as a result of the project. As no habitat for any other listed or
proposed listed species exists in the study area, no effects to federally listed species are anticipated.
4.0 STATE LISTED SPECIES
Table 4-1 includes the State of Colorado listed threatened and endangered species. Habitat assessments
were performed within the study area on April 10 and May 22, 2024 to supplement desktop review of these
species. No state-listed species are anticipated to occur in the study area, nor be impacted by the proposed
project.
Table 4-1. State Listed Species of Colorado
Species
Boreal Toad (Bufo
bo�easbo�eas)
Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher (Empidonax
t�aillii extimus)
Mexican Spotted Owl
(St�ixoccidentalis
lucidaJ
Burrowing Owl (,4thene
cunicula�iaJ
State Status'
SE
SE
ST
Potential to Occur or be Impacted bythe Project
Impact
Determination
Lesser Prairie-Chicken
(Tympanuchus
pallidicinctusJ
Whooping Crane (G�us
ame�icanal
Piping Plover
(Cha�ad�iusme%dus
ci�cumcinctusJ
Least Tern (57ema
antilla�umJ
4
Prefers high altitude wet habitats (8,000-12,000 feet in elevation) such
as lakes, marshes, pontls, bogs, and quiet shallow water. No such
habitat is located in the study area,
Southwestern willow fiycatchers require moist microclimatic and
vegetative conditions, and breed only in dense riparian vegetation near
surface water or saturatetl soil. No such habitat is present.
Occurs in forested mountains and canyonlands. No such habitat is
present.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
Found in dry, open areas with short grass antl no trees. This species has
been known to use abandoned prairie dog holes as nesting habitat. The
ST study area has tall grass and prairie dog holes. However, during the field No impact.
investigations, no evidence of burrowing owls was observed in the study
area.
ST No habitat present, No impact.
SE PleaserefertoTable3-1,
ST No habitat present.
SE No habitat present.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
FINALECOLOGICALCHAAACTEAIZATIONSTUDY
Plains Sharp-Tailed
Grouse(Tympanuchus
phasianellus jamesii)
Razorback Sucker
(Xyrauchen texanusl
Colorado Pikeminnow
(Ptychocheilus LuciusJ
Greenback Cutthroat
Trout(Oncoihynchus
claikistomiasl
Northern Redbeliy Dace
(Phoxinus eosl
Rio Grande Sucker
( Catostomus plebeius)
Arkansas Darter
(Etheostoma craginiJ
Brassy Minnow
(Hybognathus
hankinsonil
Common Shiner(Luxilus
comutusl
Bonytail (Gilae%gansl
Humpback Chub (Gila
cyphal
Lake Chub (Couesius
plumbeusJ
Plains Minnow
( Hybognathus placitusJ
Southern Redbelly Dace
(Phoxinus erythrogasteiJ
Suckermouth Minnow
( Phenacobius mirabilisl
Lynx (LynxcanadensisJ
Kit Fox (�ulpesmacrotisJ
Grizzly Bear (Uisus
arctosl
5
FINAL ECOLOGICAL CHAAACTEAIZATION STUDY
SE This species' range is limited to the grasslands of eastern Colorado
SE No habitat present. Razorbacks are found in deep, clearto turbid waters
of large rivers and some reservoirs over mud, sand, or gravel.
ST No habitat present. This species lives in swift flowing muddy rivers with
quiet, warm backwaters.
Greenbacks prefer cold, clear, gravely headwater streams and mountain
ST lakes which provitle an abundant food supply of insects. No such
habitat is present.
Preferssluggish, spring-fed streamswith a lotofvegetation and woody
SE debris. They can also be fountl in small, spring-fed lakes and bogs. No
such habitat is present.
SE No habitat present, Rio Grande suckers inhabit streams with clean
gravel riffles, clear pools, large wood and aquatic vegetation.
Not known to occur in Rule Creek, Only known to occur in the Upper
ST Arkansas, Fountain Creek, Horse Creek, Upper Arkansas at John Martin,
Big Sandy Creek, Rush Creek, Black Squirrel Creek, antl Chico Creek
tlrainages.
Occupies stream channels (particularly pools), back waters, and beaver
ST pondswithabundantaquaticvegetation,especiallysubmergent
vegetation. No such habitat is present,
Inhabits small, motlerately clear streams having high gradients and a
ST predominance of gravel, rubble, and bedrock pools, No such habitat is
present.
SE No habitat present, Only known to occur in rivers.
ST No habitat present. The humpback prefers tleep, fast-moving, turbid
waters often associated with large boultlers and steep cliffs.
Most commonly found in cold-water lakes with clean gravel, but it can
SE also live in cold-water rivers and streams. Southernmost tip of range
extends into northern Colorado,
SE Occurs in the plains of eastern Colorado.
Prefers slow-moving pools antl undercut banks in streams. They neetl
SE plenty of vegetation, especially algae. Also needs woody debris for
cover. No such habitat is present.
SE This species typically inhabits gravel riffles in clearto turbid creeks and
rivers. No such habitat is present.
The lynx is found in dense subalpine forest antl willow-choketl corridors
SE along mountain streams and avalanche chutes, the home of its favored
prey species, the snowshoe hare. No such habitat is present.
SE Range in Colorado is limited to western edge of state in hot desert-y
areas.
SE UnlikelytooccurinColoratlo.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
No impact.
Preble's Meadow
Jumping Mouse (Zapus ST No riparian corridor exists in the study area that would provide habitat. No impact.
hudsonius p�ebleiJ
Gray Wolf (�nislupusl SE Believetl to be extirpated in Colorado. No impact.
Wolverine (GuloguloJ SE This species is found in tundra, taiga, boreal, and alpine biomes. No impact.
River Otter (Lontra ST No habitat present. No impact.
canadensi�!
Black-Footed Ferret SE Currently being re-introduced in certain locations around Colorado, but No impact.
(Mustelanigripesf none are nearthe study area.
' SE = State Endangered, ST = State Threatened
5.0 CPW HIGH PRIORITY HABITAT
The Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) High Priority Habitat Web Map Application was reviewed to determine if
any high priority habitat is located within or adjacent to the study area. As shown in the figure below, the only
high priority habitat that extends into the study area is the mule deer severe winter range and mule deer
winter concentration area. The impact area for the project, which is a small area immediately north of Trilby
Road and east of Taft Hill Road, does not encroach upon this high priority habitat. No impacts to this habitat
are expected as a result of the project.
�
Figure 5.1. Data from the CPW High Priority Habitat Web Map in the vicinity of the study area (study area is
shown as a red circle).
C
FINAL ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDY
cf'b^J �,a:,i�a!
6.0 WATERS. WETLANDS. FLOODPLAINS
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) established programs to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill
material and other work in waters of the U.S., including wetlands and other special aquatic sites. The CWA is
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
oversight. Under Section 404 of the CWA, regulated waters of the U.S. are broadly categorized to include the
territorial seas, tidal waters, and non-tidal waters of the U.S., including inland features such as intrastate
lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, and
natural ponds (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §323 and 328).
The USGS topographic map and data from the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) indicate there are
no potential waters of the U.S. or wetlands within the study area (Appendix A, Figures 2 and 3). Field
investigations and delineations for the proposed project relied on methods outlined in the USACE's 1987
Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Wetland Delineation Manual for the
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). The field surveys were conducted on April 10
and May 22, 2024 to identify surface water resources within the study area. No waters of the U.S. or wetlands
were identified within the study area. Therefore, there would be no impacts tojurisdictional waters or
wetlands. No Section 404 permit will be required, and no coordination would be necessary with the USACE.
According to the online Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain mapper, the study area
lies within Zone X, defined as areas outside the 100-year floodplain. Appendix D contains the current
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette containing the study area.
7.0 MIGRATORY BIRDS
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it illegal to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell,
purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such
a bird except under the terms of a valid federal permit.
Migratory bird and nest surveys were conducted in the study area on April 10 and May 22, 2024. Prairie dog
holes were observed in the study area. Burrowing owls are known to use prairie dog holes for
burrowing/nesting habitat. The burrows containing owls often have a"white-wash" of waste at the entrance
to the burrow. No such burrows were observed within the study area. Field observations found that the
burrows appear to be either still in use by prairie dogs or abandoned altogether. No evidence of burrowing
owls was observed in the prairie dog holes or anywhere else in the study area.
Western meadowlarks (Sterne//aneg/ecta) and song sparrows (Me%spizame%dia) were observed foraging
in the study area. No bird nests were observed in the grass or sagebrush. It is recommended that
construction be completed between September 1 and March 31 to avoid impacts to foraging migratory
birds that use the study area for foraging. If this construction period is not feasible, foraging birds would
likely move away from construction activities to undisturbed areas. Once construction is complete, all
disturbed areas would be revegetated and become bird foraging areas once again.
a
FINAL ECOLOGICAL CHAAACTEAIZATION STUDY
8.0 PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT PLAN
Field investigations on the impact area in April 2024 found black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys/udovicianus�
occupying the flat portions of the proposed impact area. Along the west and south edges of the impact area,
there is a slope that goes up to the Taft Hill Road and Trilby Road roadways and intersection. No prairie dogs
or prairie dog holes were observed on the sloped areas.
The City of Fort Collins Decision-Making Flowchart for prairie dog management was consulted to help
determine the best course of action. Since the impact area lies within a property under development review
application, and the affected prairie dog colony is less than one acre, no City permit or Colorado Parks and
Wildlife permit would be required for prairie dog removal. In this situation, there are two options for prairie
dog removal:
1. Trap and Donate: CPW allows trapping for donation to raptor centers and Black Footed Ferret recovery
programs, and
2. Fumigation: fumigate the colony and properly dispose of the remains.
Since the impact area is small (0.28 acre with a portion of that unsuitable for prairie dogs), the preferred
method of prairie dog removal is fumigation. More information can be found in the Prairie Dog Management
Plan prepared by RESPEC.
9.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Coordination with the Colorado State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) was conducted in March/April
2024 to determine if any previously recorded cultural resource sites exist within 0.5-mile of the proposed
impact area. According to the SHPO, two cultural resource surveys had previously been conducted in this
search area. However, due to the confidential nature of recorded cultural resource data, the locations of
these surveys were not provided. No recorded cultural resource sites or areas were identified in the areas
that were surveyed, or anywhere within 0.5-mile of the study area. Therefore, the project would have no
effect on recorded cultural resource sites.
In the event a paleontological or archeological site is discovered during construction of the project, all
construction activities would cease and the SHPO would be contacted to determine how to proceed. The
correspondence letter from the SHPO and information on the two previous cultural resource surveys are
attached in Appendix E.
�
FINAL ECOLOGICAL CHAAACTEAIZATION STUDY
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
No federally-listed or state-listed threatened or endangered species or their habitat were observed on the
property; therefore, the project will not affect any of these species. No coordination with the USFWS or CPW
would be required.
No waters of the U.S. or wetlands were identified in the study area. Therefore, no Section 404 permit is
necessary and no coordination with the USACE would be required.
No migratory bird nests were observed in the study area. However, to avoid impacts to migratory birds,
construction activities should be performed between September 1 and March 31 when migratory birds are
absent. If this construction period is not feasible, foraging migratory birds would likely move away from
construction activities to undisturbed areas. Once construction is complete, all disturbed areas would be
revegetated and revert back to bird foraging areas.
No recorded cultural resource sites or areas were identified within 0.5-mile of the study area. Therefore, the
project would have no effect on recorded cultural resource sites. In the event a paleontological or
archeological site is discovered during construction of the project, all construction activities would cease
and the SHPO would be contacted to determine how to proceed.
�
FINAL ECOLOGICAL CHAAACTEAIZATION STUDY
ESpEC
APPENDIXA
FIGURES
FINAL ECOLOCICAL CHAAACTERI2ATION STUUY
a
m
C
.a
�
c
�
0
Cathy Fromme
Prairie Natural
Area
tooth
ihts
,l�
;
'�
�
�
�
rn
a
N
d
�
W Trilby '<d
� Former Franz
'I Farm (Cathy
Fromme Prairie
NA)
a
�
��
� La Eda �-�
�
� W Trilby Rd
�h
C-
�
1
�
7
.T7
�
n
�
Coyote Ridge
�Jatural Area
Rimrock Open
Space
LEGEND
� Proposed Impact Area
� Study Area (500-foot
Buffer)
Prairie Ridge
Natural Area
l
Q
m
O1
C
K
I
m
�
x
A
a
Coyote Ridge
Natural Area
�
�
L �.,
� -
ro�Range �� ^�',�
�Community
College �
JI N
L �
U
yl
�
�
Redtail (
I ` Natural
� o�
� FossH Cre��'
��
�
n
�Ic��,. � _�,
Hazaleus
Natural Area
_ _W Trilb.y-Rd-== ._
Colina Mariposa
Natural Area o`
,`<;yng�e
PeYto�
O�
Long View Farm
Open Space
[ouden Q/fch
I w �i5t sr
City of Fort Collins, Esri, TomTom, Gari%in, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc,
METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS,, US Census Bureau, USDA, IiSFWS.
0 o.2s o.5 ►v FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP
MILES W E TRILBY TANK AND WATERLINE PROJECT
Scale: 1" = 2,640' S ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
C:\Users\sarah.i�\OneDrive - RESPEC, IncuDS Projed Stuff\Trilby Tank�GlS\ArcGIS\FortCollins_1041\FortCollins_1041_ECR.aprx — By Sarah.[tr
Colorado Springs, CO
5540 Tech Center Dr., Suite 100
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
Phone: 719.227.0072
www.respec.com
8/7/2024
�
— =--.r -
�, �
�� � �� �.
r�
! �.
:
r . �I
�_ . �
I� ■ �
�
`� • � .
. a_ � _ ��
� �� ' �, * # �
_ L �
� � � � - +�
� . � �� � r
� � r-� � .
_ � � �
� -� � - _ � I
� v' � � ,
1 ," , ,�
� � � ., � . �: - �
. � ' � � � � - -�
� � 1 � ' '
�� � ' _ ��� .I
i''�,t ' �
* � -�} _ � . � � �1 �� �, t i
�
i r � i �i f,"�
� . �1 ' E� � � '� - _ � �_� � ,,�� .
��� . - �� ' � I � � �
��:.�-� ` �� �+� •,r � '.
- '�.s - s - , _ �' �, _ '�M
- _'_�_ � " _ ♦ -.1_ _ r � ` + � � f ' -�� . �, .. .... - - ` T/
." � � ' ,� .�I� � � , " _ �-�� '� - !.. t . . �.
. `+ �� �
� � . / # •
, • - . 1
+ �s � �� ; � l_ v , �a r � •
'�
�� �
� ' - I s. ' i
� rt� � 1 f ,� - - - � � ��I - � , _�;. I ► � �
� � I � �� ' � �
_ � - '� -{ . ���. � � �
.� �`� � ,
1 �. �, __ '�. � r�.
r � � •
•, - �, 'T ♦ � *.
,���� . , s. .� ,�'•
� _�
LEGEND �' � J � � �' r
� Proposed Impact Area ; �
O Study Area (500-foot ' ~a �
Buffer) '"'
NWI Wetland Type "''�` ,, � - ' �'
�
�� Freshwater Emergent
Wetland
Riverine
��
o Zso 50o N F I G U R E 2: N W I M A P Colorado Springs, co
5540 Tech Center Dr., Suite 100
FEET W E TRILBY TANK AND WATERLINE PROJECT Colorado Springs, co sos�s
Phone: 719.227.0072
SCale: 1" = 500' S ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION REPORT �Wrespec.com
C:\Users\sarah.itz\OneDrive - RESPEC, Inc\JDS Projed Stuff\Trilby Tank\GIS\ArcGIS\FortCollins_1041\FortCollins_1041_ECR.aprx — By Sarah.Itz 8/7/2024
C:\Users�sarah.i�\OneDrive - RESPEC, Inc\JDS Projed Stuff\Trilby Tank\GIS\ArcGIS\FortCollins_1041\FortCollins_1041_ECR.aprx — By Sarah.Itr 8/7/2024
LEGEND �
� Proposed Impact Area
O Study Area (500-foot
Buffer)
Natural Habitat & �"'
Features
Aquatic ,,
Emergent VJetia�d
Lost to Development
Native Grassland
Native Upland Foothiils
� Forest
� � Native Upland Foothills
Shrubland
Native Upland Plains , �
� � Forest �
_ Native Upland Plains
Shrubland
I�i Non-native Grassland
� Non-native Upland
Plains Forest
�� Riparian Forest �
� Wet Meadow
1
�� � �
. ��� � • ,
��"'�� � - .
r d
� � ` ��
F �
li
�
� �'f
r
, i
�'�
,0�.
Y - � I�
=�
=i
4`�
�jl
�
�
�
,Wet�Meadaw�.
�1
�
� �I NatlVe
� �`�, Grassland
i
� � `, � — �� , �
r + �
� .I
�i � : .
, .
.,
. ��, t � `�
- 4 !i' � � � / II 1 ► ��� �i '�'�, �
�
� • , �. � � � •'* "�,,.
, , ':'��
, ��' � y • J �~�� _� _ - ' _ �! � �f J �
�
Wet Meadow
/-- _ -- -- __
�� � Emergent �_
Wetland
�
�eI�IVQ
G�as5land
I�or�-nativ�e
Grasslar��
� ; - �_Trilby Road� - - _ '
� -.
. � ��
' , . '� � •'A � . l -1
� � , �� �, r r
�
�
� I --� . ' �
,, � r
� �`
i�'� �•", , . �� � —
. ,��
_ �" � ,.1; �.
r �,� . *�
r, � • ,,,f . J ♦ • �
� � � -s � , �� r l ~ , �.r
�I F � _ �
r�
N�sn -n�tive
Gra�si��nd
0 250 50o N FIGURE 4: NATURAL HABITAT
FEET W E & FEATURES
TRILBY TANK AND WATERLINE PROJECT
Scale: 1" = 500' S ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
C:\Users\sarah.ite\OneDrive - RESPEC, Inc\JDS Projed Stuff\Trilby Tank\GIS\ArcGIS\FoRCollins_1041\FoRCollins_1041_ECR.aprx — By Sarah.Itz
Colorado Springs, CO
�� 5540 Tech Center Dr., Suite 100
I" Colorado Springs, CO 80919
Phone: 719.227.0072
www.respec.com
8/7/2024
ESpEC
APPENDIX B
�Ii�il�iIr
FINAL ECOLOCICAL CHAAACTERI2ATION STUUY
C�th� Fr+�mm� fV�tural,�r�a:
the proposed impact area.
Trilby Road Project, Photos Taken on April 10 and May 22, 2024 Page 1
Photo 1: Facing north into pro�osed impact area, and Taft Hill
Road on the left.
Photo z: Facing east along Triluy Roud from near intersectlon of
Trilby Road/Taft Hill Road.
Photo 3: Facing northeast into the study area from northeast of
Photo 4: Facing southwest towards the intersection of Trilby
Road/Taft Hill Road from within the proposed impact area.
Photo S: A shallow swale was observed in the study area, but
outside of the proposed impact area. The swale is not
a wetland or water of the U.S.
Photo 6: Blacl<-tailed prairie dog holes were observed in the
proposed impact area and were active by prairie dogs at the
time of the field investigations.
Photo 8: A blad<-tailed prairie dog, such as was
found in the proposed impact area.
C9yote Ridge Natural Ar�a:
Photo 11: A s�op � br; ��'ueen run over and lies
within the Coyote Ridge Natural Area.
Photo 10: Facing west along Trilby Road from near the intersection
with Taft Hill Road. Groundcover in this area is primarily bindweed.
Road intersection.
Trilby Road Project, Photos Taken on April 10 and May 22, 2024 Page 2
Photo 7: Facing north across proposed impact area and study
area from nearTrilby Road.
Photo 12: Facing southeast towUrds ti,� I rili�y Road/ I aft Hill
Pholo 9: Facing north along west side of Taft Hill Road from
near the intersection with Trilby Road. It appears a vehicle
ran off the road and into the fence.
' - - � .=. � t J - � � �--�- _ �
. _ ��
_ ,aa� -r - y "'�• �� —
� M� `: - � � �..,Y �1\� . el V �, �p`�u�������
9� y�
+'� t r� , ::tF�, ` '"� I
� �. .,� ..� � ��1: � t , y �^ b�
�� � � 1-""�'' .. � �5,�`,. ~�J � � �,�
� } ti�"'
�� � t � ` .
` � Y �. 1 L . / i�'�8� 1 Y. .
�j'�:�R➢� r 3 ' -f. � � 1�
p, +� , � T - y
� t 6 } A ,������ �at .
%`R � � 1,� S Yi �1 S IY � f1�S' � '�
2 +r`
�M1a"°.� j � f h � 4 � � /: t,�
,� � j , t �i, fS ,.'t �, , _ . . , � V�l� iY � , -
Photo 14: Facing northeast from inside the study area
in Coyote Ridge Natural Area.
Trilby Road Project, Photos Taken on April 10 and May 22, 2024 Page 3
Photo 13: Facing southwest across the Coyote Ridge Natural
Area from within the study area towards Trilby Road.
Photo 15: Facing east towards the Taft Hill Road/Trilby Road
intersection from within Coyote Ridge Natural Area.
Photo 16: Facing south towards the Taft Hill Road/Trilby Road
intersection from within Coyote Ridge Natural Area. This area
contains mostly bindweed.
ESpEC
APPENDIX C
IPAC SPECIES LIST
FINAL ECOLOCICAL CHAAACTERI2ATION STUUY
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
IPaC
IPaC resource list
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical
habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced
below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but
that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area.
However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust
resources typicalfy requires gathering additional site-specifit (e.g., vegetation/species
sunreys} and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) inform�t�"o�,
Below is a summary of the projett information you provided and contact informatian fot tfie
USFWS office{s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the ir�trocfuction to
each section that follows �Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USF'WS F�cr'I'rties, and NWI
Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust reso�,�rces �ddressed in that
section.
�.C3Cc��IQC1
Larimer County, Colorado
. ., �
=,' ,-.,
..
� .,� �
,
�,
��n��
�._
..�
�
Loca I offi ce
�.a
�
�
�
��
�
Colorado Ecological Services Field Office
` (303) 236-4773
�� (303) 236-4005
MAILING ADDRESS
IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 1/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
Denver Federal Center
P.O. Box 25486
Denver, CO 80225-0486
PHYSICAL ADDRESS
1 Denver Federal Center
Bldg 25 Room W1911 }
Denver, CO 80225-0001
IPaC: Explore Location resources
��
`
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 2/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
Endangered species
IPaC: Explore Location resources
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of
project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each
species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes
areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in
that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at
the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow
downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this
list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine �ny
potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific inforrr�atiat� is o�ten
required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal age�e�es to "�equest of the
Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be
present in the area of such proposed action" for ar�y pro�ect that is conducted, permitted,
funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list
which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from
either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field
office directly.
For project evaluations �hat require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC
website and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the pt�oject Ibcation and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log i n f� d i rected to do so).
4. �rovide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species� and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries�).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown
on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under theirjurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also
shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for
more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 3/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
NAM E
Gray Wolf Canis lupus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4488
Preble's Meadow�umpi�g Mouse Zapus hudsonius pr�blei
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat f�r this species. Your location does
not overiap the critical habitat.
fZttps:l/eeos.fws.govlecp/species/4090
Tricolored Bat Perimyofiis subflavus _ �
Wherever f�aundl
7his sp�ti+�s nnfy needs to b� Considered if the falk�,+,ir�
cvndition applies:
� This species aniy needs to be co�gtdered if the �roject
includes wind turbine oper�ions.
Na critical habitat has been d+es°f�ated for this species.
it �s:/lecas.fws.govlec�/species/10515
B I rCi�S
�4A� �
Eastern Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. jamaicen.�sis
Wher���r fotind
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10477
STATUS
EXP N
Threatened
��
�
��
�
�
R�osed Endangered
STATUS
Threatened
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 4/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened
This species only needs to be considered if the following
condition applies:
• Project includes water-related activities and/or use in the N.
Platte, S. Platte, and Laramie River Basins which may affect
listed species in Nebraska.
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does
not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039
Whooping Crane Grus americana Endangered
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does
not averlap the critical habitat.
f�ttpsllecos.�►nrs.g vo /ecp/species/758
Fishes
f��tM E
Gr�enloack Cutthrnat Trout Oncorh�ynchu� darkii sto�s
�Nf��rever found
Na criticai habitat h�s b�en designated for tl�i��p�cf�
hrtps:/lecos.fws.govlecplspeeies/2775
Pallid Sturgeon �caphirh�rn+�iy,�jalbus
Whereverfound
This species onl� ne�d� to �e considered if the followfng
conditior��ppiiesi
R,�r,�ect tnclude3 water-related activities and/or use in the N.
RIatC�e, 5. �latte, and Laramie River Basins which may affect
listed species in Nebraska.
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https:l/ecos.fws.govlecp,�peciesl7152
I nsects
NAM E
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Flowering Plants
v �
�TATI�
T�treatened
Endangered
STATUS
Candidate
��
�
�
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 5/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
NAME STATUS
Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1669
Critical habitats
Threatened
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the
endangered species themselves.
There are no critical habitats at this location.
�
�
��
��
You are still required to determine i�your pref�ct(s) may have effects on
all above listed species.
�
Bald & Golden Eagles
Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act� and
the Mi�ato�y Bird Treaty Act2.
Ar� person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
bald or golden eagles, or their habitats3, should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.
Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-
migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 6/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
measures.pdf
IPaC: Explore Location resources
• Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC
https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-
golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action
There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald
eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activitv
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimiZation
measures to redute impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF
PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAM E
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus I�ucc�cephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concem (BGC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagfe Act or for potenCial
Susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of
development or activities.
https:/lecas.fws.govlec�/speciesl1626
�olden Eagle fiqu'rla chr�a�tos
7his is nat a Bird of Conservation Concern (�Cf �ri 'this �ea,
but warrants attention �ecause of th� E�'gle,�ct qr for potential
susceptibilities in affshore areas frorrt cert�n fypes of
development or activities.
https://e�os.fws.gflvletp/species/1680
Probabiiity of Presence Summary
BREEDING SEASON
Breeds Oct 15 to J�t 3�1
��
�� �
Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31
T.he g�a�hs �elow provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely
to ���resent in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your
pro�ect activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read
"5�pplemer�tal Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", speCificallythe FAQ sect�on titled
"Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to
interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-
week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey
effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One
can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also
high.
�
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 7/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events
for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted
Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in
week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week
12 {0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
weeic 12 is Q.2S/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is a.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a�t�tistical
conversion so that a11 possible vaiues fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This i� �he
probabi{ity of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover yvur mouse c��sari�aver the bar,
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estirr�ate of the time�-am�in�ide which the bird breeds
across its entire range. If there are no yellr�w ba�s s�v►�n fbr a bird, it does not breed in your
project area.
Survey Effort (I)
Vert�ca! black lines superlmpc�sed on ptc�bability of presence bars indicate the number of
surveys performed for t�t�t ��cies�n the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The
number of surveys,is eXpressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a ba�"s�urve��efFort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data (—a
Arnreek is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are
based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle I � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � I I � I � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 8/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
Golden Eagle I I I I I I I I I I I
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
IPaC: Explore Location resources
IIII ��i� I��I Illi IIII IIII Ilil IIII IIII
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified
Iocation?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN).. The
AKN data is based on a growing collection of survev, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried
and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project
intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in
that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What daes IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my �
specified Iocation?
The Migratary Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC). �nd�+�ther
species that may warrant specia! attention in your �roiect location.
The migratory bird list generated for yaur project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge
Netwark (NKN). The AKN data is based an a growing coltecxion of survey, banding. and citizen science
datasets and is queried and filtered ta return a list of those �'�1's�repr�rt�! as occurring in the 10km grid
cell(s} which your praject int�rsects, and that have bee�a identifiied as warranting special attention because
they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Ac ►���ts may app�ly), or a species that has a
particular vulnerabifity to offshore activities or �t�veio�n�nt.
Again, the Migratary Bird Resource lis� inclr�es �nly a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.
It is not representative of all birdsthaCmay occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially
present in your project area, ple�s��isit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What if I have e�gles on my list?
If yo� �rojec�,has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to abtain a permit to avoid violating
C1�e E�gle Act should such imp�cts occur. �lease contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if
yac� have questions.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act� and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act�.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats3 should follow appropriate regulations and
consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.
Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 9/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-
migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
• Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC
https://www.fws.go�lmedia/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-
golden-eagles-may-occur-project-actian
�
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on tFte
U�FWS B�rds of Conser�ation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attentibn irr�ou�
project location. To learn more about the (evels of concern for birds on your lis�t and how
th�s list is generated, sEe the FAQ below. This is not a list of evet,�+ birct,yo� may find in this
location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be,fau�c��n,�pUr project area. To see
exaet locations of whe�-e birders and the general pub�i� hav� si�hted birds in and around
your projecfi area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: eJ��er your location, desired date
range and a speeies on your list). For proje�ts��a� o�ar off the Atlantic Coas�, additional
maps and models detailing the relative acc�rrer�ce and abundance of bird species on your
list are avaiiable. Links to additap.�al i�orr�4ation about Atlantic Coast birds, and other
important information abc�,ut �Qur �nigratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and
use your migratory taird repo�t,,can be found below.
For guidancg r�n wh� to schedule activities or fmplement avoidance and minimization
measuresta re�fuce ii�npatts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF
PRES�I�,CE S,UMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
br�edi,�g i� your project area.
NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of
development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
BREEDING SEAS�N
Breeds Oct 15 to Jul 31
Breeds May 25 to Aug 21
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 10/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus Breeds May 1 to Aug 10
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Ferruginous Hawk Butea re�alis
This is a Bird of Conserv2rtion Cancern (BCC) only in particular
Bird Conservation Regions {BCRs) in the continental USA
https.I/ecos.�uvs.govlecp/species/6038
Galden Eagle AquFla chrysae�as
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this �'ea,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for �o�entt�l
sus�eptibilities in offshore areas ftom c�rta�ty+pe5 o'F
development or activities.
F�ttps:/le�os.fws.goWlecp/species/168fl
�rasshopper Sparrc,�,uu Amt'qobrar� 'ius savannarum
p�rpallidus
ihis is a Bird of C�iservation Concern (SCC) only in particular
Birt� t"b�serr+ation Regians (BCRs) in the continental USA
I-�ttps:llecos.€ws.go�+lecp/speciesf8329
LeSser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
i'his is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Breeds Mar 15 to �ug� 1� �
,�
����
�r�eds Dec 1 to Aug 31
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug �0
Breeds eisewhere
Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 11/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5511
Long-eared Owl asio otus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3631
Northern Harrier Circus hudsanius
i'his Ps a Bird of Conservatlon Cancern (SCC) only in particular
Bird Canservat9on Regions (BCRs) in the continentaf USA
I�ps.11ecos.fws.govlecp/�pecies/8350
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melar�atos
This is a Bird of Consenration Cancern (BCC) throu�hout its
range in the cantinental USA and Aiaska.
Pinyon �ay �ymnc�rhi�us cyanQcepM�lus
This �s a Bird afConservation Concern (BCC��hrou�hix�ats
range in the continental USA and Alasl�ao
https:/lecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9420
Red-headed Woodp,�c�er 1dQ�ne�pes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of �'onSer�ration Concern (SCC) throughout its
range in t�e conti�ental USA and Alaska.
�r�gt�,�'� Pipit Anthus spragueii
T'�+is is a Bird of Conservation Concern (6CC) throughout its
range in the cantinental USA and Alaska.
h�tps://ecos. Fv�►s.gov/etp/speei es/8954
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus hudsonicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Probability of Presence Summary
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15
Breeds Apr 1 to Sep 15
� `�
�
Breeds �t�ewP��re
�
Bre�ds �eb 15 to Jul 15
Breeds May 10 to Sep 10
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds elsewhere
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely
to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your
project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 12/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
"Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specificallythe FAQ section titled
"Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to
interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-
week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey
effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One
can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also
high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probabifity of presence for eath week is calculated as the number of surve� event$ in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of �urV���vertts
for that week. For example, if in week 12 �here were 20 survey event�and �he �otted
Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of �h� Sp�t�d Yowhee in
week 12 is OZS.
2, To prop�riy pr+�sent the pattern of presence across xhe yea�, th+e f elative probability oF
presence is calculated. This is the prababilitar of �r�sefl�e divid�d by the maximum
probabifity of presence across all weeks, FQr �x�pte�, fmagine the probability af presence
in week z0 for the 5potted Towhee �s Dt��, and fihat the probability of presence at week
12 (O.ZS) is the maximum of any week pPthe year. The relative probability of presence an
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; �� week 24 i�ts 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probabi�ty a� p�ese�nce calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so thr�t a11 po�sible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probabifj���f pr�ence score,
Ta see a ba�'s pt�obability of presence score, sirnply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
BrPeding Season ( )
Yeli�ow bars denote a very libera! estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds
acrass its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does nat breed in your
project area.
Survey Effort (I)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of
surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The
number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 13/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are
based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Broad-tailed
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CONJ
Chestnut-
collared
Longspur
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
■ probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
■��' 1��' 11�� ���� ��1.�a��. �I���1 ���� ���� ���, �11"��1'„1
�+�--� �-�-+-� ++��-� �-�+� ��1� ���� 1�1� ���I� ���� -��+� +-�--�� -�+�+
���� � ��� � ���� ����� I I I ( � � I � I I I I I I �� ���� ���� � ( � I I I I �
Chimney Swift I���..� -�-�++ -f f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �� I I I � 1 I I TT�T TTTT T��T TTTT
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
C{ark'sG�ebe -r+TT '�'�i'�' '�'+'}�� ���� ��T� ��'� �� � �•a'� � � ! � ���� �1�� ���� �i--��{'i-
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Ferruginous
Hawk
BCC - BCR
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Grassho�per
S�arroW
BCC - BCR
Lesser
Yellowlegs
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Lewis's
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Long-billed
Curlew
BCC-BCR
�+�+ ++�+� �� I I I I I h�l �} I� I I I I I I I � I I I�� �-+i-+ ��+�M ���-I- +��M+
I I I I' I�� I 1. �.�r I I i I I I i � I I I( � I I I I i I I I I�h�++ �+++ ����� I I I I
-�-� �+ +�i'�' +�'++ ��-I-+ ��+� � � � � � � � i � � �++�+� +��'i' +�++ -i-i`-�-♦
�+++ +�++ ++++ ��If I ++�+ ++++ +�-�+� +-I��+ �+++ ����+ ++++ ++-F+
++++ ++�+ ++++ � � � � $++�- ++++ +,++ �'++ ,��+ ++++ ++++ ++++
���� �� I � I I ��� �� I � ��� � ����� ���� ���� ���� ��� I � ��� I ��� I � I
Long-eared Owl _l �_�_�. .��_�--�- �-++� ++++ +��� � I I�� r I T TTTT �� I T I I I�� I f r T�TT
BCC Rangewide �
(CON)
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 14/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
SPECIES
Northern
Harrier
BCC - BCR
Pectoral
Sandpiper
BCC Rangewide
(COM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCE NOV DEC
�,��,��� �,N� �1��� �+�� +��-F ��+�_ _�-++� ���� �1��,1��� �I+�
+�'++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ �'�+{" -F�-+�" �`��+ i-+++ i'+++ 'E'+++ ++++
Pinyon Jay +++� i i i � ++++ ++++ �+++ ++++ i I I i ++++ �+�+ ++++ ++�p+ ++++
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red-headed I��I �l�'����� f��f II�I ���� ���� ��I� ��I� ���� �TI1 ����
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CQN)
Sprague's Pipit � � � � � I � � � .�. I �- � + + � -� + I T �r T T � T T 1 T � T T T I f } � 1 ��' f + 1 � � ! r 1 � �
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Whimbrel � �� f �� � � � � � � ��� f�� T � T � i � � � i i i ��'� } ��-� f � � � � �� f+ t I i �
BCC - BCR
Te11 me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid ar minimize impacts to migratory
birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures descrit�e�measures that can help avoid and minimize impatts to all
birds at any location year round. Impiementatior� of tFiese measures is particularly important when birds
are most likefy to occur in the projpct �rea. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the
focations of any active nests and avbiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.
To see when birds are most �ilcelyto �bccur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probabiliry of
Presence Summ�ary. A�¢itionaf ineasures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity
you are conducting and the rype of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does �paC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentialiy otcur in my specified
loc�tion?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of �onservation Concern (BCC� and other
species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge
Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survev, banding, and citizen science
datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because
they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a
particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.
It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially
present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL Tool.
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 15/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially
occurring in my speci�ed location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by
the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of sUrv2V, banding, and
citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes
available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret
them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
T� see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering,
migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RA�L Tool and look at the range maps
provided for birds in your area at tt�e bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your re5ults. ff a bird
on your migratory bird 5pecies list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does oc�ur irt�rt�r
project area, there may be nest� present at some point within the timeframe specified. lf "Br�eds
elsewhere" is indicafied, then the bird likely does not breed in your proj�ct area.
What are the levels of concern f+ar migratory birds?
-�
Migratory birds delivered thrvugh IPaC fall into the following dist�nc'kc�t�o'Pi,es of concern:
1, "�CC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern {g�Qj that are pf concern throughout their
range a�ywhere wi[hin the U5A (inciuding H�waii, rthe Pa��c tslands, Puerto �ico, and the Virgin
lsiands};
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that �e of �onceTn only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in
the continental USA; and
3, "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" #�ird� arQ nofiBCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either
because of the E�gle Ac req�'reFnents (for eagles) or (for non-eagles� potential susceptibilities in
ofishore areas frort� zertain types of development or activities {e.g. offshore energy development or
longli�,�ishil�y.
�thoC�gi� it is �rnportant to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in
p�tie��@r, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species af
rangewide concern. For more informaCion on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and
minimize migratary bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs far these topics.
Datails about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relati�e occurrence and abundance of both indi�idual bird species and
groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data
Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to
you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal
maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird
Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the
year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional
information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the� nanotag studies or contact
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 16/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
IPaC: Explore Location resources
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating
the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of
priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other
birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of
presence" of birds witfi�in rhe 10 km grid cell(s) that averlap your project; no� your exact projecc footprint.
On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar�
and for the existence of the "no data" indicator {a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the ke�r
component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability af presence score can be viewed as mo��
dependabfe. in contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and�,.�M�etr,�f�re, a lack
of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simpty a start�},� po9�t fd� i�ntifyin�
what birds of concern have the potential to be in your projed area, when the,�.�igl�t be�h�re, and if they
might be breeding (►nrhich means nests might be present). The list helps y�u knc�w what to look for to
confirm presence, and helps guide you in Icnawing when to implerr,�ent t�.o�servation measures to avoid or
minimize potentiat impacts fram yot�r praject ac.tivities, shaul¢�pwes�nce be �onflrmed. Tp learn more
abaut canservation measures, visit the FAQ "7efl me about �cons�rvati�h measures I can implement to
avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at t{� �c�ttom �f�►�r migratory bird trust resaurces page.
F� CI � Itl �S
�
�
National Wildlifie Refuge lands
�4T1���ivit�+ proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must
undergo a`Campatibiiity Determinatian' conducted by the Refuge. PleaSe contad the
individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
There are no refuge lands at this Iocation.
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 17/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to
d�termine the actual extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WEfLAND
PEM1A.
RIVERfNE
R45BC
��
�
r'�
�
'� �
��
�
A full deseription for each wetland tode ca�t be �aund at the National Wetlands Inventory
websMte
NOTE: This initial screer�ing does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether
wetlands occur. Ad�tiQr�al ir��ormation on the NWI data is provided below.
Data IimitaCions
Tj�e S�e's,�b�ective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
in�.�r'rn�ion an the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of
higf�altitude imagery. Wetlands are identif[ed based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A
margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular
site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image
analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work
conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any
mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There
may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted
on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 18/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of
aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or
submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and
nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also
been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial
imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe
wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or
products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local
government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.
Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should
seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory
programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
.�
� �
�
https://ipac.ecosphere.iws.gov/location/4ZIKULILWSEXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 19/19
ESpEC
APPENDIX D
FEMA FIRMETTE
FINAL ECOLOCICAL CHAAACTERI2ATION STUUY
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette ��FEMA
I05°T14'Y! �Xl°?55T'N
Legend
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DEfAILED LEGEND AND INDIX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
Wlthout Base Flood Elevatlon (BFE)
Zone A V, A99
With BFE or Depth zone,qe, ao, nH, vE at
Regulatory Floodway
0.2%Annual Chance Flood Haard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile zone x
��� Future Condltlons 1%Annual
Chance Flood Hazard zonex
��-- ° Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
�' �=' Levee. See Notes. zone x
� ' Area wRh Flood Risk due to Leveezorre o
NOSCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Ha�rd zonex
0 Effective LOMRs
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o
GENERAL ---- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES I I I I I I I Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
B ��•Z CrossSectionswithl%AnnualChance
77.6 Water Surface Elevation
e — — — Coastal Transect
+�«u�� Base Flood Elevation Line (BF�
Limit of Study
- Jurisdiction Boundary
---- Coastal Transect Baseline
OTHER _ _ profile Baseline
FEATURES Hydrographic Feature
A Digital Data Available N
� � No Digital Data Available �
MAP PANELS Unmapped
4 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property locatlon.
Thls map complles wlth FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map
was exported on 4/11/2024 at 12:08 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
� cc. I.V�UUU
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
ESpEC
APPENDIX E
SHPO DATA RESULTS
FINAL ECOLOCICAL CHAAACTERI2ATION STUUY
���
History Colorado
Sarah Itz
RESPEC
5540 Tech Center Dr., Suite 100
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
March 26, 2024
Re: Trilby Road 1041 Compliance
File Search No. 26088
At your request, the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has conducted a search of the Colorado Inventory
of Cultural Resources based on your specified search criteria (the area shown in the provided shapefiles), located in the
following areas:
PM T R S
6th 6N 69W 9, 10, 15, 16
0 sites and 2 surveys were located in the search area(s).
If any site, district, building, structure, object, or survey area was identified within the search area, a spreadsheet of
detailed information* accompanies this letter. Our records may not represent all cultural resources in Colorado, nor can
they be considered comprehensive, as most of the state has not been surveyed for cultural resources. There is the
possibility that as yet unidentified cultural resources exist within the proposed impact area.
This letter is not considered formal consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800)
or the Colorado Register of Historic Places (CRS 24-80.1). In the event that there is federal or state agency involvement,
please note that it is the responsibility of the agencies to meet the requirements of these regulations.
We look forward to consulting with you regarding the effect of the proposed project on significant cultural resources in
accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations titled "Protection of Historic Properties" or
the Colorado Register of Historic Places, as applicable (http://www.historycolorado.org/consultation-guidance).
If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation at (303) 866-3392. Thank
you for your interest in Colorado's cultural heritage.
Dawn DiPrince
State Historic Preservation Officer
*Information regarding significant archaeological resources is excluded from the Freedom of Information Act. As such,
legal locations of these resources must not be included in documents for public distribution.
Trilby Tank 1041 Environmental Document SHPO Database Results
Survey Name Survey �r�cedure �ead A�ency Onsgi�u�i�n D�ocumena Mame A�ethod Completion Acres Si�e 0� count
VD �ate Cmunt
LR.ER8 A CLASS III INVENTORY OF THE 1 LINEAR SEGMENT FERC Federal Centennial A CLASS III INVENTORY OF THE Class III 07/13/2009>3/ 159.9 4 4
PROPOSED DIXON CREEK TO Energy Regulatory Archaeology, PROPOSED DIXON CREEK TO 2008
HORSESHOE SUBSTATION Commission Inc. HORSESHOE SUBSTATION
TRANSMISSION LINE IN LARIMER TRANSMISSION LINE IN LARIMER
COUNTY,COLORADO COUNTY,COLORADO
LR.LG.R1 AGRICULTURE IN THE FORT COLLINS BLOCK- CLG PROJECT Fort Collins Cultural AGRICULTURE IN THE FORT Reconnaiss 1995>11/09/20 44800 34 0
3 URBAN GROWTH AREA, 1862-1994 08-93-80042.7 Landmark Resource COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA, ance Survey 04
(CLG PROJECT08-93-80042.7), Preservation Historians 1862-1994(CLG PROJECT08-93-
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO Commission - 80042.7), LARIMER COUNTY,
Advance Planning COLORADO
Department
Page 1 of 1
ESpEC
APPENDIX F
PREPARER RESUME/QUALIFICATIONS
FINAL ECOLOCICAL CHAAACTERI2ATION STUUY
�ESpE
C
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
/ Section 404 Permitting
/ T&EHabitatAssessments
/ NEPACompliance
/ Project Management
/ GISAnalysis
/ Trimble GPS Data Collection
EDUCATION
/ BS in Biology, University of Texas at Austln,
Austin, TX (2003)
CERTIFlCATIONS 6 TRAINING
/ Texas Department ofTransportation Pre-
certifications: 2.3.1 Wetland Delineation,
2.4.1 Nationwitle Permit, 2.6.2 Impact
Evaluation Assessments, 2.13.1 Hazardous
Materials Initial Site Assessment (2020)
/ WetlandTraininglnstitute40-HourWetland
Delineation Course(2005)
/ USACE 404 PermitApplication and
Compliance (2009)
/ Wetland Training Institute Wetland Plant
Identification (2011)
SARAH N. ITZ
auERuiEw
Sarah Itz has 16 years of experience working on a variety of water/wastewater, transportation, land
development, and environmental projects. Sarah's technical specialties include project management,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, wetland delineations, Section 404 permitting,
agency consultation, plant identification, threatened and endangered (T&E) species habitat assessment,
and presence/absence surveys. Most of her projects have been in Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado for a
wide variety of clients, including departments of transportation, counties, municipalities, oil/gas and
utility companies, private landowners, Native American tribes, regional water districts, landfills, airports,
and civic groups. Sarah was an employee of JDS-Hydro Consultants, Inc., which RESPEC acquired in
2021.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
IURISDIC110NAL 4�AiER DETERMINATIONS AND WETLAND DELIN%ATIO�rS
Cottonwood Creek Drop Structures, City of Colorado Springs, Colorado. As environmental project
manager, Sarah completed field investigations for Section 404 permitting purposes for three proposed
drop structures in Cottonwood Creek north of N. Academy Blvd. Field investigations included wetland
tlelineations along the creek, delineating the ordinary high-water marks (OHWM) of the creek, habitat
assessment for federally listed species known to occur in the vicinity, and taking representative photos
and notes. Sarah prepared a preconstruction notification (PCN) under Regional General Permit (RGP) 37
forthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) submission.
South CascadeAvenue Project, CityofColorado Springs, Colorado. Sarah was the environmental project
manager for a proposed channel improvement project at Cheyenne Run under S. Cascade Avenue in
Colorado Springs. She conducted fieldwork to delineate the OHWMs of Cheyenne Run and to GPS
locations of mature trees in the project area. She coordinated with project engineers to determine water
and vegetation impacts. Lastly, Sarah prepared a Regional Permit PCN for submittal to the USACE.
/ Wet�and Training Institute Regional Field Marksheffel Road Improvements, City of Colorado Springs and Colorado Springs Utilities, Colorado.
Refresher Courses in Laramie WY and Santa
Fe NM (2017, 2018) Sarah was the environmental project manager and permitting specialist in this project. The project
/ University ofTexas at Austin Technical involved a proposed Marksheffel Road bridge over Sand Creek and related creek stabilization activities
Writing Course (2013) within and along Sand Creek. She performed wetland delineations along the creek, delineated the
OHWMs of the creek, completed a habitat assessment forfederally listed species known to occur in the
WOAKHISTORY vicinity, and took representative photographs and notes. Sarah coordinatetl with the USACE to determine
/ RESPEC (2021-Present) the appropriate permitting and prepared a PCN under Nationwide Permit (NWP)14 and RGP 37.
/ JDS Hydro Consultants, Inc. (2019-2021)
/ EST, Inc. (2020-Present) West Water Pipeline Project 1041 Environmental Documentation, Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District,
/ CP&Y, Inc. (2005-2019) Colorado Springs, Colorado, As an environmental specialist, Sarah completed a habitat assessment and
/ Texas Department of Transportation (2005) Waters/wetlands delineation along the proposed West Water pipeline project area and completed the
environmental sections of the EI Paso County 1041 environmental document, Field investigations also
/ Stormwater Research Group (2004) involved taking representative photographs and GPS data of notable features within the project area.
/ Environmental Careers Organization (2004)
Bar-X Waterline Project 1041 Environmental Documentation, Falcon Area WaterAuthority, Falcon and
BIeCk Fofest, ColOredO. Sarah served as the environmental specialist for this proposed 10-mile-long Bar-
X waterline project and completed a habitat assessment, waters/wetlands delineation, and the
environmental sections of the EI Paso County 1041 environmental document. She also coordinated with
the State Historic Preservation Office regarding potential cultural resources along the project and with
RESp�c
SAAAH ITZ // 2
the Colorado Natural Heritage Program staff regarding potential protectetl areas and special status species within and near the
project.
Riverbend Crossing Proposed Development Environmental Studies, Avatar Riverbend, LP, Southern EI Paso County, Colorado.
This project involved the proposed residential development of two parcels totaling 52 acres. As the project's environmental
specialist, Sarah completed a waters and wetlands delineation, T&E species habitat assessment, and migratory bird and nest
survey on the entire property. She then prepared an environmental report for the client and detailed the field results. Fountain
Creek and one emergent wetland were delineated on the property; however, based on project plans, no impacts to either would
occur, and no Section 404 permit was deemed necessary.
Beulah Distribution System Improvements, Beulah Water Works District, Beulah, Colorado. This project involved the proposed
replacement of numerous deteriorating waterlines in the Town of Beulah. Sarah served as the lead environmental specialist,
completing field investigations, listed species habitat assessment, GIS mapping and analyses, and preparing a PCN under NWP
58 for submittal to the USACE.
Fountain Creek Diversion Project, Cityof Fountain, Colorado, Sarah is currently serving as the Section 404 Permitting Specialist
for the proposed Fountain Creek Diversion Project that would channel water from the creek to storage reservoirs via underground
wateriines. Thus far, she has completed wetland and OHWM delineations along the creek and creekbanks in the project area and
conducted habitat assessments for federally listed species in the vicinity. She prepared an Individual Permit application and
submitted it to the USACE in November 2023. Sarah's future work on the project will include preparing an alternatives analysis,
assisting with the conceptual mitigation plan, assisting with designing a fish ladder at the diversion structure, and intensive
agency coordination.
Hausman Road Drainage Project, Phase I(LC9), Bexar County, Texas. Sarah was the Wetland Scientist for this proposed road
widening/flood control/stream restoration project in Bexar County. She performed tasks related tojurisdictional waters
determination and habitat assessment for listed species. A hydraulics and hydrology study was completed for downstream
flooding issues; Sarah helped identify environmental issues forthe alternatives produced. The preferred alternative required an
NWP 27 for Stream Restoration Activities. She completed the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Report and assisted with
developing the Alternatives Analysis, the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Report, and the NWP 27, which USACE approved
with no comments.
State Highway (S.H.) 9 at Fish Creek Bridge Replacement and Approaches Project, Oklahoma Department of Transportation,
Hughes County, Oklahoma. As the Wetland Scientist, Sarah completed a wetland delineation, waters of the U.S. determination
(WOTUS), and habitat assessment for this bridge replacement project in Hughes County, Oklahoma. She delineated a complex
forested wetland and braided stream system of Fish Creek. Sarah also completed the Biological Assessment report for inclusion
in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) document.
San Antonio River OutFall Pipeline Environmental Compliance Document and Phase I, San Antonio WaterSystem (SAWS), San
Antonio, Texas. Sarah served as an Environmental Scientist for the proposed rehabilitation and repair of an 18-mile-long
segment of SAWS pipeline in southeast San Antonio. She completed fieldwork, environmental compliance documentation, and a
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). She also coordinated between the client and subconsultants, determined Section
404 permitting requirements, and made a Phase II ESA recommendation because of hazardous waste issues along the project.
C-5 Culebra and G28 Zarzamora Creek Pipeline Project Environmental Compliance Document and Phase I, SAWS, San Antonio,
Texas. Sarah served as an environmental specialist for the proposed rehabilitation and repair of several segments of SAWS
pipeline near downtown San Antonio. She completed fieldwork, environmental compliance documentation, and a Phase I ESA.
Sarah also handled coordination between the client and subconsultants, prepared and submitted a PCN under NWP �2 to the
USACE, and recommended Phase II because of hazardous material issues in the project area.
GEC III, TRACK3 Wetland Delineation and PCN, DallasArea Rapid Transit (DARn, Dallas County, Texas, Sarah served as Wetland
Scientist for two proposed DART light rail lines, one extending from Garland to Rowlett and the other extending from Dallas Fort
Worth International Airport in Irving to Bachman Station in Dallas. She performedjurisdictional water determinations and wetland
delineations and determined impacts to waters and wetlands and T&E species' habitat. Lastly, Sarah prepared two PCNs for
submission to the USACE.
RESp�c
SAAAH ITZ /0 3
Forest Grove Road Reconstruction and Bridge Replacement Project, Choctaw Nation and McCurtain County, OKIvAAHOMA. This
project involves reconstructing 2 miles of Forest Grove Road and replacing a bridge over Garvin Creek in southeastern Oklahoma.
As the Section 404 permitting specialist, Sarah prepared a PCN under NWP 14 because of permanent impacts to two
jurisdictional wetlands along the road. She is currently coordinating with the Tulsa District of the USACE to get it approved.
Drainage Ditch Study and Wetland Delineation, City of Del Rio, Texas. As an environmental specialist, Sarah completed fieldwork
for a drainage ditch study for seven drainage ditches in and around Del Rio, She completed wetlantl delineations and
jurisdictional determinations for each site. She also coordinated with the USACE project manager and assisted in preparing a
report for the City of Del Rio with results of thejurisdictional determinations and wetland delineations.
Blanco Road, Glade Crossing to W. Oak Estates PCN, Bexar County, Texas. Sarah was an environmental scientist for this
improvement project on Blanco Road in northern San Antonio. She completed the wetlantl delineations and determined the
proposed impacts on Panther Springs Creek. She aided in preparing an NWP 14 PCN under General Condition 17 because of the
presence of federally endangered karst species in the vicinity.
BabcockRoad Improvements PCN, BexarCounty,Texas. Sarah was an environmental specialistfor the proposed improvements
to Babcock Road in northern San Antonio. She conducted fieldwork to obtain limits ofjurisdictional waters for permitting
purposes and prepared a PCN under NWP 14 because of the presence of federally listed endangered species in the vicinity.
Sarah coordinated with project engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to minimize impacts on the habitat of
this endangered species. USACE approved the permit with no revisions necessary.
Trinity RiverAuthority Environmental Assessment (El�, RJN Group, Dallas County, Texas. As a project biologist on this project,
Sarah assisted in the preparation of an EA for the Texas Water Development Board for a proposed sewer line in the cities of
Farmers Branch and Dallas. She performed preliminaryfield investigations, including wetland delineation, listed species habitat
assessment, and vegetation surveys. Lastiy, she coordinated with regulatory agencies regarding anticipated project impacts on
environmental resources.
Galveston Island State Park Individual Permit, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Galveston, Texas. Sarah served as an
environmental specialist for this project and assisted in preparing an Individual Permit at Galveston Island State Park (GISP). The
project included the construction of residences for GISP staff, maintenance facilities, and beachside camping facilities that
Hurricane Ike destroyed. Sarah aided in completing wetland delineations on the beachside camping area and portions of the
bayside area. She also prepared an NWP because of impacts to a small wetland from a proposed driveway.
T5E SPECIES HABITAT ASSESSAiEPITS AN� SUA{IEYS
Triview Northern DeliverySystem Waterlines and Pump Station, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Sarah served as environmental
project manager for this project in eastern Colorado Springs. Due to the presence of Preble's meadowjumping mouse critical
habitat near the project area, a Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared on the USFWS IPaC website. The BA included results of
the habitat assessment and an effects analysis for each federally listed species on the projecYs IPac list. Sarah coordinated with
USFWS and project engineers regarding conservation measuresto avoid impactsto the Preble's meadowjumping mouse and its
critical habitat. Additionally, she conducted a wetland delineation along the proposed waterlines and preparetl the
environmental sections ofthe 1041 application forsubmittal to EI Paso County,
CircleA MinorSubdivision Project Environmental Studies, Private Landowner, Colorado Springs, Colorado. As the environmental
project manager, Sarah performed desktop research and field assessments as required by EI Paso Countyfor the subdivision of a
15-acre property in the Black Forest area of Colorado Springs. The habitat assessment determined there was no suitable habitat
for anyfederally listed T&E species. No waters orwetlandswere identified on-site. Sarah prepared a Wildlife Reportto document
the property'sfield results, maps, and photos.
Teller CountyWater Utilities WastewaterTreatment Plant Expansion EA, Divide, Colorado. Sarah served as the environmental
project manager for this project and prepared an EA for the wastewater treatment plant expansion for submittal to the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment. She conducted a habitat assessment and extensive wetland delineation on the
site. She prepared figures in GIS and a photo log to include in the EA and sent agency coordination letters to interested parties.
She also coordinated with Alpine Archaeology, the cultural resources subconsultant, to complete the Section 106 consultation.
TrilbyTank Environmental Compliance, Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, Fort Collins, Colorado. This project involved a
proposed six-million-gallon potable water storage tank and a new connecting waterline in Fort Collins. Sarah was the lead
biologist for this project and performed water/wetland investigations, a migratory bird and nest survey, a habitat assessment for
RESp�c
SAAAH ITZ // 4
federally listed species, and GIS mapping and analyses, To document the expected environmental impacts of the project, she
prepared an Environmental Compliance Report for the Water District.
Girl Scout Camps HabitatAssessments, Girl Scouts ofthe Northeast, Crosbyton and Nemo, Texas. Sarah was a field biologist for
this project involving two sites: Camp Rio Blanco in Crosbyton and Stevens Ranch in Nemo, Texas. She conductetl a desktop
review for Camp Rio Blanco, a habitat assessment for federally listed species, and WOTUS and wetland delineations within the
property. She aitled in delineating a complex stream system and severaljurisdictional wetlands and produced an environmental
memorandum detailing the field results. She completed a desktop review, habitat assessment, wetland delineation, and Golden-
cheeked Warbler presence/absence surveys for Stevens Ranch.
Golden-cheeked Warbler (Setophagachrysopa�� Presence/Absence Survey, Bexar County, Bexar County, Texas. As a field
scientistforthis 2.2-mile-long pipeline project, Sarah attended field visits every 2 weeksthroughoutthe breeding season (March
15-May 15) to survey for the golden-cheeked warbler. Surveys included walking the entire easement, listening for golden-
cheeked warbler calls, and watching for golden-cheeked warblers. At the conclusion of the survey, she reviewed and submitted
the Survey Results Report.
San Felipe Creek Master Plan, Cityof Del Rio, Texas. As an assistant biological scientist, Sarah conducted a habitat assessment,
wetlands and WOTUS determination, and native vegetation survey within the project area of the San Felipe Creek Master Plan
project in Del Rio, Texas. The habitat assessment determined the presence of federally listed T&E species habitat for the
Mountain Plover, Devils River minnow, and the San Felipe gambusia. Sarah aided with the required USFWS coordination since the
project was within critical habitat for the threatened Devils River minnow.
T&ESpeciesSurvey,Algodones Dunes, Imperial County, California. Sarah served as a temporary field biologist and surveyed for
three special status plant species, Peirson's milk-vetch (Astralagusmagdalenae ua� peirsonii�, Algodones Dunes sunflower
(Helianthusniueus) and sand food (Pholismasonorae) to obtain estimations of tlensity and population size for the Bureau of Land
Management. She used GPS units to navigate on transects through the Algones Dunes and data sheets to record findings.
Bald Eagle (Ha/iaeetus/eucocepha/us� Survey, Brazoria County, Texas. As an environmental scientist, Sarah attended weekly field
visits to survey the status of nesting pairs of bald eagles near the Brazos River and S.H. 36 in Brazoria County. Construction of S.H.
36 improvements in the vicinity was halted to avoid noise impacts on the eagles.
Golden-cheeked Warbler and Black-capped Vireo (�ireoat�capi//� Surveys, Travis County, Texas. As a biological volunteer,
Sarah attended field visits approximately every 2 weeks during one spring and summer with Travis County Natural Resources
Division to survey and map the presence and territorial movements of the golden-cheeked warbler and black-capped vireo.
Sarah's responsibilities included marking the location of a singing male bird on an aerial map, if and where there was a counter-
call if a female was present, what the bird was doing, and mapping the male's territory.
Treated Water DeliveryS�rstem Environmental Seroices, City of Meridian, Bosque Counry, Texas, Sarah served as an environmental
specialist on this project, which involved a 12.5-mile proposed waterline between and in the cities of Meridian and Clifton. She
conducted a habitat assessment, wetland delineation, and vegetation survey. Sarah prepared and submitted an environmental
compliance reportto theTexas Parks and Wildlife Departmentto documentthe project's due diligence.
TrinityAquiferWaterSupply Project HabitatAssessment and Wetland Delineation, BexarMetWater District, BexarCounty,
Texas. Sarah worked as a biologist forthis pipeline project in Bexar County. Her responsibilities included completing a
habitat assessment report, a PCN to the USACE under NWP 12, karst surveys, presence/absence surveys, and a Phase I ESA.
Habitat for the federally listed golden-cheeked warbler was identified, and after consultation with USFWS, it was determined that
a presence/absence survey would be required. The survey was performed throughout the breeding season, with results
documenting that no golden-cheeked warblers were observed.
Lake Georgetown Habitat Assessment and Golden-cheeked Warbler Presence/Absence Surveys, Chisholm Trail Special Utility
District, Williamson County, Texas. Sarah served as the field biologist and assisted in conducting presence/absence surveys for
the federally listed golden-cheeked warbler afterthe habitat assessment identified approximately 50 acres of appropriate
warbler habitat. Sarah attended a coordination meeting with USFWS before the surveys were performed. Golden-cheeked
warblers were heard during the surveys. Observations were recorded, antl the report was submitted to USFWS.
ESpEC
SAAAH ITZ // 5
Navasota Ladies'-tresses Presence/Absence Surveys, Grimes County, Texas. Sarah conducted Navasota Ladies'-tresses
(Spiranthesparksiil presence/absence surveys on a large property near Carlos, Texas. Flowering plants and numerous rosettes
were observed and recorded with GPS. Additionally, Sarah identified and recorded locations of the closely related Nodding
Lad i es'- tresses (Spiranthes cernuaJ.
Babcock Road Habitat Assessment and Golden-cheeked Warbler Presence/Absence Surveys, Bexar Counry, Texas. As a lead
environmental specialist, Sarah completed a habitat assessment along a segment of Babcock Road in northern San Antonio,
where roadway widening and drainage improvements are proposed. Suitable golden-cheeked warbler habitat was identified. She
completed one season of presence/absence surveys in the spring of 2009 with negative results. However, Sarah returned in the
spring of 2010 to monitor the habitat before construction and audibly detected a golden-cheeked warbler within the project
area. She coordinated with USFWS and project engineers regarding projectdesign nearthe warbler occurrence. Construction
phasing was altered to avoid construction near the warbler territory during nesting season, and design plans were adjustetl to
avoid impacts on the warbler habitat.
Environmental Documentation, CityofCarrollton, Carrollton, Texas. As a project biologist, Sarah completed wetland delineations
and T&E species habitat assessment for proposed waterlines, two pump stations, and a pressure tank within Mclnnish Park in
Carrollton, Dallas County, Texas. She completed and submitted an environmental report outlining results and recommendations
to the City of Carrollton.
DilleyAmine Faciliry Discharge Line Environmental Document, Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC, South Texas. Sarah was an
environmental specialist on this project, which involved a 6-mile-long natural gas pipeline and associated structures in Frio and
La Salle Counties. She completed a desktop review and fieldwork and prepared the environmental compliance document,
including vegetation and ecology, WOTUS and wetlands, soils, cultural resources, and T&E species habitat assessment.
TRANSPORTATION PAOIECTS
Alaska Department ofTransportation and Public Facilities (ADoTP� Drainage Manual Update, State ofAlaska. Sarah was tasked
to update the Wetlands chapter of the ADoTPF Drainage Manual. She conducted extensive research on the various types of
Alaska wetlands, their current conditions, and climate change trends in these wetlands. She also researched state and local
jurisdiction regulations on wetland permitting and updated federal information on delineating and mitigating impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands. She used this research to edit and update the wetlands chapter in the ADoTPF Drainage Manual.
Grosenbacher Road Low Water Crossing Project, Bexar Counry Flood Control District, Bexar County, Texas. Bexa r County
proposed this projectto improve Grosenbacher Road by removing a segment of itfrom the 100-yearfloodplain. Sarah served as
the environmental specialist and conducted a WOTUS determination and a habitat assessment. She also prepared and submitted
a technical memorandum to Bexar Countywith conclusions and permitting requirements.
Hazardous Materials Initial SiteAssessments (ISAs), Oklahoma Department ofTransportation, Various Counties, Oklahoma. Sarah
served as an environmental specialist for these four projects in various locations around Oklahoma, including Jackson, Seminole,
Adair, and Hughes Counties. She completed hazardous materials ISA reports for each project, which included performing field
surveys, completing land use survey forms, conducting research for multiple potential hazardous material sites at the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission, and preparing the ISA reports forthe Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT).
Choctaw Road Widening, Ciryof Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Sarah served as a wetland scientist for this roadway
improvement project on the southeastern side of Oklahoma City. She performed wetland delineations and a habitat assessmeni
and prepared and submitted a PCN to the Tulsa District ofthe USACE because of minor permanent impacts to a juristlictional
wetland along the project.
John KilpatrickTurnpike Improvements, Oklahoma TurnpikeAuthority, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Sarah was this project's
assistant project manager, which involved roadway improvements to John Kilpatrick Turnpike in Oklahoma City. She completed
the habitat assessment,jurisdictional waters determination, and land use survey and identified areas to be analyzed for noise
barriers. She also assisted in preparing technical reports.
CIRB NEPAOn-Demand Services, ODOT, Central Oklahoma. As an environmental specialist, Sarah aided in the preparation of
specialist studies (hazardous materials, waters and wetlands, and biological reports) for six bridge replacement projects
throughout central Oklahoma. She gathered environmental constraints, created maps in ArcGIS, prepared documents, and
performed field surveys. Field surveys included habitat assessments for federally listed T&E species, vegetation survey, wetlands
and WOTUS delineations, and hazardous materials investigations.
RESp�c
SAAAH ITZ // 6
I.H. 35 Section 3A EA, Texas Department of Transportation (fxD01� Waco District Waco, Texas. Sarah assisted the environmental
project manager in preparing the EA for the I.H. 35 Section 3A expansion project. Her responsibilities included gathering existing
conditions data, assessing the project's direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts, and preparing figures using
ArcGIS. She also coordinated with the Waco District, TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division, and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). Sarah prepared for and attended the project's public hearing.
U.S. 57 SuperTwo CEs and Blue Line Report, TxDOT Laredo and San Mtonio Districts, Maverick, Zavala, and Frio Counties,
Texas. As an environmental specialist for this project, Sarah prepared a"blue line reporY' for the proposed U.S. 57 Super Two in
Frio County and a CE for an 85-mile segment of U.S. 57 in Maverick, Zavala, and Frio Counties. Her responsibilities included
desktop research, preparing GIS maps, makingjurisdictional determinations, determining area of impacts, identifijing plant
species and T&E species, attending public meetings, and preparing the CE document.
I.H. 35 Frontage Road Improvements, Hays County and TxDOTAustin District Hays County, Texas. Sarah was the environmental
project manager for the proposed improvements to I.H. 35 frontage roads in Hays County. She completed a CE with an Intlirect
and Cumulative Impacts (ICI) Analysis. She also conducted fieldwork for land use and all biological and socioeconomic resource
aspects. She coordinated with TxDOT Austin District and Environmental Affairs Division to get the project cleared by FHWA.
Sarah also prepared a design modification memorandum to cover changes to a bridge proposed after the CE was approved.
Mopac Improvement Project EA, TxDOT and Central Texas Regional MobilityAuthority, Austin, Texas. Sarah served as an
environmental specialist for the Mopac Improvement Project in Austin. The project involved proposed express lanes on Mopac
(State Loop 1) from Parmer Lane to Cesar Chavez Street and several noise walls. Tasks included writing the socioeconomic
resources section and the project-level toll analysis for inclusion in the EA. She also performed noise monitoring at specific
receiver locations along the corridor, assisted in building the Traffic Noise Model (TNM), and conducted a complex noise analysis
for a portion of the project in TNM (traffic noise modeling software). Sarah also created a Public Involvement Plan and assisted in
numerous public meetings, noise workshops, and technical working group meetings. The EA received a Finding of No Significant
Impact from FHWA in the summer of 2012,
S.H. 29 CorridorStudy, Williamson County, Williamson County, Texas. As a staff biologist, Sarah prepared a preliminary
environmental constraints report on the proposed expansion/new location project on S.H. 29. Data collected included
jurisdictional waters and wetlands data, endangered species habitat, land use data, and socioeconomic data. She conducted
intensive surveys to determine the presence or absence of suitable golden-cheeked warbler habitat. She also aided in
completing the alternatives analysis and ICI analysis and attended multiple open houses for the public.
Unicorn Lake Boulevard Hike and BikeTrail CE, TxDOT, Dallas, Denton,Texas. As the environmental project manager for this
project, Sarah prepared a CE for the City of Denton and TxDOT Dallas District for proposed pedestrian and landscape
improvements arountl Unicorn Lake. Her responsibilities included desktop research, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
preparation, U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, aerial and general location maps, fieltlwork, agency coordination,
and environmental document preparation and submittal.
DARTSection Line 3, Phase I Section 404 Permitting, Dallas and Tarrant Counties, Texas. This proposed DART light rail line
extended approximately 5.2 miles from Belt Line Station to its terminus at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Terminal A
Station. Sarah was a field biologist forthis project and completed wetland delineations and listed species' habitat assessments
along the proposed line. She preparetl an environmental due diligence report documenting the fieltl results and 404 permitting
requirements,
I.H.35 Ramp Reversals, Cityof Round Rock, Texas. Sarah was an environmental specialist for the proposed ramp reversals on I,H.
35 from FM 3406 to U.S. 79 in Round Rock, Texas. She coordinated with geologists and karst surveyors for the Geologic
Assessment and karst survey. She completed the field survey to document the existing conditions of the site. Lastly, Sarah
prepared the CE and reviewed the noise analysis.
S.H.180 and Cattlebaron Drive PCEs, TxDOT Fort Worth District, Tarrant County, Texas. Sarah was an envi ronmental scientist for
two Tarrant County, Texas, bridge replacement projects. She aided in completing fieldwork and the Programmatic Categorical
Exclusion (PCE) documents, which included descriptions of the proposed action, project funding and planning information, need
and purpose, alternatives, right-of-way, and a discussion of all environmental concerns.
RESp�c
SAAAH ITZ // 7
KeyS Creek, The Wallace Group, Waco, Texas. Sarah was the assistant environmental project manager for this interesting
mitigation project outside Waco, Texas. She completed a T&E habitat assessment and delineated wetlands and a braided stream
in the project area. She helped complete numerous wetland delineations in the spring-fed wetlands to determine the area of
wetland and hydrologic connectivity. Sarah assisted in producing an Environmental Report and Restoration Plan. After that, she
helped prepare a mitigation report for submittal to the USACE. Assisted in and led 5 years of monitoring at the site to document
success rates of plantings and erosion control methods.
Henze Road SA-47 Project, Bexar County Flood Control District, San Antonio, Texas. Bexar County proposed this project to bring
Henze Road out of the 100-year floodplain in three locations. As an environmental scientist, Sarah conducted fieldwork to
determine the limits of WOTUS and conduct a habitat assessment of the listed species known to occur in Bexar County. She also
prepared a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) report and a T&E species impacts report. She also coordinated with
project engineers to avoid impacts on an unusually large live oak tree in the project area.
FM 3028 at Rock Creek Bridge Replacement, TxDOT North Region, Parker County, Texas. Sarah was an environmental specialist
and prepared a PCE for a proposed bridge replaceinent project on FM 3028 over Rock Creek. She conducted background
research and field surveys, including wetland delineation and habitat assessment, and assembled the PCE document. She also
coordinated with District staff because of changes in the PCE process and surveying for the Comanche peak prairie-clover ( Dalea
reuerchonii), which had suitable habitat in the project area.
South Hausman Road (L,C. 5), Bexar County Flood Control District, Bexar County, Texas, Bexar County proposed this project to
bring S. Hausman Road out of the 100-year floodplain at French Creek. As a field biologist for this project, Sarah conducted
fieldwork to determine the limits of WOTUS, delineate a jurisdictional emergent wetland, and conduct a habitat assessment of the
listed species known to occur in Bexar County. She prepared a PJD report and a T&E species impacts report.
�ISCNARGE PERMITfING
DilleyAmine Faciliry Discharge Permit, Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC, South Texas. Sarah assisted the lead biologist in obtaining
a discharge permit for a 6-mile-long natural gas pipeline and associated structures in Frio and La Salle Counties. She prepared
the permit for submission to the Railroad Commission ofTexasTechnical Permitting Department. She also used GIS to create
maps/figures showing the proposed project and discharge location and flow direction.
LANDFILLS
Denton Landfill, Cityof Denton, Texas, Sarah was an environmental consultant for this proposed landfill expansion project in
Denton. She conducted a wetland delineation, T&E habitat assessment, and a vegetation survey and prepared an Environmental
Compliance Documentto documentthe resultsand Section 404 permitting requirements.
Hunter Ferrell Secured Landfill Facility Infrastructure Improvements, City of Irving, Texas. As a field biologist for this landfill
expansion project proposed by the City of Irving, Sarah conducted wetland delineations, a T&E habitat assessment, and a
vegetation survey. She included a desktop review, field investigation results, site photographs, and figures in an environmental
compliance document for the City of Irving to retain in their records.
GAMING FACILITIES
Ada West EA, The ChiCkasaw Nation, Ada, Oklahoma. Sarah was an environmental specialist on this project to construct a gaming
facility near Ada, Oklahoma. She completed portions of an EAforthe Bureau of Indian Affairs. Sarah completed fieldwork after an
agency kick-off ineeting and prepared the EA's biological, hazardous materials, air quality, and noise sections.
UTILITY CONSULTING
Appendix D
Exhibit 3- Existing and Proposed Easements
�
� 2 "� �=..
�i
I�
,,,
�,
�r
--
% �,e�
�
�. , _
� �,-o- � �
,
�000❑'C�
� o 0 0 -
� � � CI
,
nnnnn-� %
��'
��
�\\;
'� �;
I I
I
;�
/�
��
/
� � i �
I
�`'
���
� �� � r � �
�1���� I I
\��L �J
������ � �� � � ��B-�I-L- � �
- - - - - _ - j
- _ = I� - - - - - - - -
_ �'W�12 W - - 12'W 12'W - - -12 W _ _ 12"\h-I -
� T �
- ---- --_-- --- - ------ -- --
X �y� X X �,i r�
��
� '��-_
/� -�� �
��
x --
- X- -X X�
u -X x _ -
W. TRILBY ROAD
.�/
'I
I
PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY &FENCE
�
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PERMANENT
FCLWD EASEMENT (10' WIDTH)
z
_
�
Q
�
0 50' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1" = 100'
'.�� � �� . TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT � ��°��r'
EXISTING 30' VERISON EASEMENT
� _.� � � ,� 20�
- - - ' �'�� �� �� ,f,' 70'± (TYP.)
�-�� - � ' � \ \ ���� �-� �� CONSTRUCTION 500.4'
3� V� ' 30 W �3D"4V�30 W � � � �- �� �_-` CORRIDOR � 26.21' Ir I - - �� �� �� � ��
- ---
- - - 1 �� ,. _ �- �
_ - �
- � � � � � 3�'W � ' �-�.� i'` �
� n.
� � � -1 �_ �_ �_ - - �_ �_ �: �_ _.� �� �� _-_ _-- �-� �� �_ _-= �_. - - �
_ _ _ ---
i _ � --• � � I 90'
,
� ,- _.�
_ ��_ �
�
�_�l--�. � ---_�_� --- � -��_ �� ��� �.� - ���-s�����������
/ _ - -_ _ -l�-l�. --� ` `' `!! 30' = W -1` ,N- ���-�r �����-���-� I-•�,vJ � 12"W-- W 'W 17����� ��������� ���r
� - � � � � w �,.��� -- ' � N30eW ,,,� 30 � 30"W 30"W __ _ 30"W� �. �6"W ��'W 30'�W ��"�, 12,,.
� 21.56' � 20, / % / ��-�� �_ � .�_ 30. -- i � "w _ �„
_ 0'4W 30'W 30'W
`" -
-
u / / � - !�-��; � , _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - _ �. ---- � - - ----E - - - --E -
X � � k�-u _
`
�_
. r �
�__ _,= � ` _ _ _ _ - _ --- -_-- - - --- - --
�,� ,
� -. - _ _ _ .� �--�( , . - � � �-_ �� _ � �- � � -. - - - - - _ . .. _
/ � . _ ,
_� . �. . ��� � .....
/ _ ;. .. , : ... . . . � ,:: ,;. - , ., , _ �, -
,, . ,,, . -_, . _ . . .-:. : rT-� "W
_ , , , � L .. . .:,:.� .:. :. .: . . .:..r . i,.. �� ` �� .. , �. . . �. . `. , '.:, 24"W 24
..< < ....
-�. 7 _. 24 W 4 �,� _...___,_ __ ___ ..r','!__-__ ____ _� � e - �. d __ ' : ._ _ . . , „ �. �q°W_.. : " ,�4"W 24"W 4"yy—
- /r f �. �'Z4�1� \ �4 W ,. .�i< < --� 24_W._�. 24: W � r,NL ` . ; _ . 24 :W _`' JJ 24 N�_,.. 2tF W - , ';. :. ., 24 W �— .
X X x��� _ � . , ... . .. --- - - YRO -- -
' _ _.
X �
,
18"W .� �� / 18'W__ 18'\�' \� `8"W 18"W—�� -`_•J�, ri3� lR"W 18"W 18"W 18'j� �„W� 18-�W - - a,�.:��� -T�,
- ,� -.r � �� �-- ,� 18"W ?3"Jtt T8"JJ �T
- T - - � --. �- - I - - - - � - - - - � � � � � � ' � - - - - — - - - -- � ��: �I � i -; •� -n �� (� � � - (1 `�i �� - i� - � ��- - , _
18"W O / F � I !� _ ` � ` _� l ' �� l i� i_ ���\ � �
�- ,..r -3 A _ _ _ � . . . . - - - �
�.� ..
/ i � � � -- -- - - - - --- - - --- ------ I �- --- - -- -
. .� .. � '..: '� � � � - - - -
��+�" .; _ - - - - - - - - - - - -
;. / / ` I L�- ---- - -- �� � �- -- - - --- - _ -- - ----- -- ----- -- �0 F;i i=0-
' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ` ° F� �0 �c ' ° F0 i-0 F° F0 F� F� c� r� - - - - - - - - -
- - ,,
- --
- - -
- - - -
--
-
--
- -
--
- - - - -
i� �
. --- - - u
� �
-CONCREIE WATER TANK- /�
� / �
- '�ii��� � � ��
'� � �
: �:. � I
, _ I
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PERMANENT
FCLWD EASEMENT (10' WIDTH)
��
Z
J
U
�
a
�
���,
Tr" "PORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
LARIMER COUNTY
/ �
,
�
3 �: '
,
�\\
r � ��_
���
� o � �
�_� /-
�� �J
�
�'�,J
i � � �
� I I
' I I
' ��
1
I � WI
�
�E � � i
�' — I I _ 1 _
+ —�+ —�--
��
I I
��
�� I wl
�
I I
I I
- --�—
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH I I I I
'"��� � � W� I
ii
� � ��
�� ,
, �� �
��-SS � � w � �
U . I I I I�
� w w '• s I I I
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
EXISTING 30' VERISON EASEMENT
20' �
�� �� �� � 70'± (TYP.) 500.4,
� �� �-� ' CONSTRUCTION I --
�3p"' �_ �� �-� CORRIDOR 26.21' I --- �- �- �- �- - - �_ �._
. \ W _�`� � -� ��� �'� r �- I I -_- I ��� �
, , � � �� �
� � � 30 � � � � �� �� �� �� �� - - ��
�-�- �_ W 'tt�, �� �-� �.� -
�.� �� ��- - ��
- � � -
_ , , _ -
�. �-�� �� ' � ����
�� __.` � - �����- ���_ _ �� ������� ������� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- ,_ --
— ---- , � — _ � —� --�— — — — — —�— --. ,,� - - — � ��,�,, - — W y�� 2
�' ., -- - - � � �
� 30'yy _ 30„W ` , ;
-- �� 30"W 30 30"W 30"W 30"W -� - �b'W -3b"W 30"W �30� 30'W ��' 30"W ; 30'W 30'W -
��
--� �
- --��
- � - ---
- -- - - --
�.
- - - - - i -
- _ ,_�� _
�_ `�
_ \ �_ . . �-�i � .... . _ ..._ _ _ -_.. -. . _ _-L . _-.. __ - _-__ _' .. ' `� i
`` ___ _��_ ' _--
.____ ___' � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - -
. . -r- - - � E C �
-__ _-- - ---- - -- - - -- _---- - - ---- ----U ---
; - .- � - � - - - - - „ ; .�- - „ ..
. �`'�`-` r. . .. � � ,� „ .. 24 W 24"W " —
=�a�-wc �24,�:-�rF,�T�,��a w .�. . �Y"w `— -- ��� � z� w--- --- z4' v G�,.w . �4�•�, 24"w �2� w. za� x� . za w a w—W. TRILBYROAD 24 w z4 w
, , $,
� _ _ _ _ .� -- - -- z-w ,zAW � �
� I� I �1 ' I ' I I
I TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT I I
�� I I
n� �_ O O 0--� I�'I
I - - - - � I I 20' °�' i� j
r� ��T � � — �-�
, � �� � , �_ � �
_ 4 4 �__ 4 I� � I o �=
I�p��1J ' I.Yi� IiM( �_ ___. � I � � .� I ��. �� I I
/
- � j o �-- �---=� -- �
i,, � _ , ' ��
3 �_ -- - ', 30'W � 30�W �; �n �.-i"�
-- � __ — - ���-�-_- -_ _
�_. '\_ . L - _ _ L � i..
- _ �- . - - - _ - - �- - - -
4„W „W —
24"W 24'W 2 24
23.46'
" �I
� I
,
�
I
il
�I
�I
=i
o '
��J
�
_�
�
� ��
i
�
�
�
,�
/ ; -
� -
�
_ �
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PERMANENT
FCLWD EASEMENT (WIDTH VARIES)
(FROM EXIST. EASEMENT SOUTH TO R.O.W.)
I I
I I
I I
� �
i i
'� �
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I �
i i
��
� ��
-PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PERMANENT
FCLWD EASEMENT (80' X 92')
� �
I I
� � �i � EXISTING 36" WATER
EASEMENT
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
I I (30' WIDTH)
� � �
� � �
�
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL
W � ; PERMANENT FCLWD
� ' EASEMENT (20' X 92')
�I_ ��i �
- �
���
W. TRILBY ROAD
,,,,, ,,,,, ,,.... ,., _
,. „
„w \a w ia w -��"w i�"v�� ��"w ,s°�c, 1ft"W _ � � ����w� _ �8'�N ��W- - - - - - - - - - - 0 IIE - - - OHE 0 lC - - - ��� � - - - OHW- - - r, � - - O - - -_�— � - � - � o_ - ���
18"W 1 _ _
- - - � - - - - - - - - - - , - - _ _
- _ „ , . ,. f � � ^� i_ _ � j � 0
_
-� (;IiC" -rJ I�- -�'�iL - .�.; - � � ;..r ���. ��GAS GAS s
\\� � I � ---- - -- ? _ ---- �,�W - -
- -- � - \ �- - - - -- - — - -- ,- ---- - -- - -- --- - _ - ---- — — _- -__ - ---- - ----- ---- - ----- - - -- -- ARYCONSTRUCTIONEASEMENT
_ u -ro— � �a i� r. Fo __F0 _ _ F�- - - r�-- - -- F� - ---- - --- - - -- --- - - --- --- - - --- -
_ � Fo ro ro Fo ro r-o Fo ro � o �� - TEMPOR
LI - - - - - - - - - �` i ' I = _ -- - _
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PERMANENT
FCLWD EASEMENT (10' WIDTH)
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PERMANENT
FCLWD EASEMENT (WIDTH VARIES)
(FROM EXIST. EASEMENT SOUTH TO R.O.W.)
I �
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PERMANENT �
FCLWD EASEMENT (30' WIDTH) N I
�
�
�� ,
�
Z
� J
J�
�
z
J�
�
J
I-
�
�.
��
�P a�
��
��� ���JG
��, Q�,P ��
Q �
��
o�
�
�
Z
0
�
>
w
�
w
Q
0
�
m
O
z
�
�
U
W
�
0
�
�
z
�
V J
Z
Q
�
X
W
�
Z
Q
�
�
�
J
�
�
0
>
J
U
�
�
�
Z
W
�
LJJ
�
Q
W
L.L
W
�
Q
�
�
W
Cn
O
�
�
�
�
�
V
Z
�
Cn
X
�..�..�
�
�fi
�
PREPARED FOR:
FCLWD
SUBMITTAL DATE:
07/01 /2024
SCALE:
HORIZONTAL: 1" = 100' VERTICAL: N/A
�
SHEET NUMBER
EXHIBIT 3
3 OF 3 SHEETS
( I
UTILITY CONSULTING
Appendix E
Civil Design for Preferred Alternate
I -__ \ s4
�
,.
�i r�-� ❑� o- � �---% 'I I
STA:4+14.33
'� W II I I 30" 45' BEND
o Z PROPERTY OWNER: � �....� k
N: s�aaa za
U U y � i � ;^I EI 183I131.37
. . �_�_•r ��-� , � ' . i
M J
� (�� ��;n
WQ . . I �III � ��J —_---- -----'..-----'_"-_40.80LF30C940PVC-'
y� � I � I I I� - �� � �� urwry caossiNc
. _ _ W .. ' _ - ' - ' I � I I�i _ PROPOSEO 23 _ _ _ EXISTING LARIMER COUNTY - �Z� PVC WATER
� . y I � . I � � I r�y ? BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SIGN I '�
TEMPORARV
CONSTRLICTION STA'. 4t56 88
� arzoPoseo sa� ... � l � 1 I �_ � � :�:� . e.oseMeNr � '- , ., . -: 30• as° eeNo
� remaoRnRv � � 1 I � �/��I � — . � .. N: o�aia zo ,�
� i
� '. GONSTRl1CTION � � WpTER EASEMENT �� � 1 � S" �� �I� \ � �� � E 01 8
,, , EASEMENT . EXISTING30 ------ --\\� �- �I `- -`�--_-_::- .. --�-\ f,��- ��I�'�837 2J �.
` -1------�----'-- . � �
--- -=-- ---
� _ -�T_ 7
.�. w, ,rw _ v�' I � ��Fn F� �
' . ....... ..."w . I 122424LF30 ; . .�^v; - .,� "u;-�- � �_
� w 1224.24 LF 30 C900 PVC -'� � � C90a PVC -
0�..... 11+00-= 10+00_,�� . .. ... aawl ao�w� .� a,^., w=w . w-�N � .
—BB�MT3B�ll�]DW�—�o�. .. ... .. :� I
= —_ —_ ---- -- —:s+oo ==— --a+oo=� ----�+oo — — —6+00 — -----s+oo`��� , �
_— -
� — - '. .- �_ . _
.--- _ ��- _ -- _- _ -- - -_ -- ---- - -- -- -__
_ �- L ,..... � .. . . _ J�
t �—
-� �, t�. _ ..a � � � -� � -�- 'm-- � �
� - -, � �.� _� x: w � - - , w u z.•w �
_?y.yy ,- ta"w -'4'W 2a"W 24'w 2a'w 2a•W _ -�.a'w :-':^� _
- W. TRILBY ROAD
PROPERTY OWNER:
LARIMER COUNTY
EXISTING IRRIGATION �
VALVE BOX (TYP.)
- PROPOSED
30' FCLWD
EXIST. FIBER � PERMANENT
OPTIC — � EASEMENT
_ I — — -
�_ __- -.
I I I II I I i° , PROPERTY �� EXISTING PROPERTV BOUNDARY
I I ExisriNcioo�rz.ow OWNER: _
�9f BOARD OF �{ �,_ �- EXISTING 30' WATER EASEMENT
I I I, ea.os � I I COUNTY I f I
STA:1+'!3.'!1- 48"CASING , COMM.
�I ,� � I i PROPERTYOWNER:
EN� 48" CASING PIPE �
N:9]34428 I I I'�-STA�.0+90]1 � GTYOFFORTCOLLINS
E�.1B3911.94 � I' 6EGIN48"CASINGPIPE1'� �I � �
I I J I ::.� � I,: � N: 9]344.28 � � ''.
I � . E: 184054 99 PROPOSEO 81' X 20'
PROPOSED I , _ J_� I ,� . �PERMANENTEASEMENT
,�20'X'16'RECEIVINGPIT i UTILITV i. � j TI ..
. � ��- CROSSING PROPOSEO � �,1pROPOSEDCONNECTION
� I�' ` 18" WATER � 81' X 92' (APPROX.) � � TO EXISTING 36" STEEL WATERLME
-� I PERMANENT I� I;,.'� �. 36" X 30" TEE
T ��T �. � �II EASEMENT WITH30"BUTfERFLYVALVE(W)
� f
. I I (SEEDETAILSHEETCi6)
� �� �� � ... I
4+00- .�_3+ �, j�� ��i_ 2+00 I I I O+OO�I srn:a,00.oa
� T .� 1+00 ',� I�� aROPoseo � � N�. a�aaa za
23.5' TEMP CONST. ESMT. . E: �84'145.]0
� `� �� II I _ -t� 44'X16'BOREPIT BEGINALIGNMENT
UTILITY - - - _ ��' ��� _ �� � ' ' b+ ... �I � �� I I I
CROSSING _ . �J � i ��__: .__ ..�I � -:-� '�� I i .� � � � '.�;II. ,'.��1_ _ _ - � - _
i _ _ _
GAS-- f-T)� �1�en=___ i -_--- _'-UTILITV F---_I � ;. � :� .� ;,...
-. � ...CROSSING I:I . - - , .._. -..
_ - - - .',zSc�_T"..-r��J��� -- FIBER OPTIC - . I -aa� -.�� .—
IITILITV� �� �I I UTILITY
— � CROSSING -\_ III I EXISTING PRV VAUIT _ �I _ CROSSING _ � _ _ _ _
UG EIECTRIC III I (TO BE REMOVED) I i FIBER OPTIC
� (BV OTHERS)
. . ."� . , yyL �wvt _ ti _ �"w „»�rO.T�'"i �' =i�-~W 'w>` 9 � � e'_xf .
�-�a"3�' .:.:__ �.,� ..- .. "'ia-R7"` _�... -wo"W __�...v� �� _'g� �" . , _ _ ;:. ... .. ...-,8 -- �....- �fl`W �+v+�_ 1d'_ �- �e._w - �. ..,-� 3 w -
-;x_� _ - --�, _ �:-�-� = - � � „ - � � - 7;=� � - -,��z � �'—� _�T� x _ _ x -� x=- �x � x�x��_ �� - I
� � - =-i- � � t . ' � - � ` j `- � � ��� .
� � , ' i i � i i � �`� � �
. ... ' ._ .� "
/ i � ,
--.�-- / � � , l � � , � �
' � � -__-! --T---� ------__'---- - -I ------�---�_-_--'__ --_-_-_--- �. --r -'� -h- �_-
_ - - - - - - _ ._ - - _ - - - - - . . .
------- ---- --- -r �--.r_--.----`----,--_--- --\ _--- - - --- --.--b--
- � _ y ,_ _ �� -�-�� _ _ ��__ .�, -
� _
I_ - ___ ��.� ���
��' � �': � -_
Fo
_ - I � 'W.r-,": ..- - - , .. �
�.-- - —c4s . w�s�L
,s— � F
I `q
t�
z, �< H �+-w a�' �<-
� cn 4 � ^
�,W I "w � � , W
- - - � - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - - - -
._. . --_-- '"-- '---_ ' , � . --_ - � `` \��
� . � � �. . . . r,- '.._i:.- -.--�,. \
i ` \ Y1
... . . � _ ,': " _ - -.r- . ,.... . .. �-: �, � . . ' - �� r ., ; I� �. �
�.,. - .... - .,... �..i":- - , -'.. -'-`',- -- �
.,.� '- �'.___ �.. ::_ . ' .. : . � . \ T� ..- � `�
_ -... - - - - - - - - - - ... . - - - - - - - - - - - _ - '_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -"- - - - - - - - - - - - _ � , _ - � -
f i I� I O'�II _ -
11 �� ��--- �
C�P PEAK \ \� I f I O fI ` -.
N=9�225.42 � X � I. � ?� � ��
E=ieaaaizs � �� PROPERTYOWNER:
PROPERTY OWNER: �! I� J �,� � EICHHOLZ
CITY OF FORT COLLINS �A f � I Z ��� ��
•� / $ ��� � � `�� .
, l� � I -
��� I ~
I
I
30 IN TRILBY MAIN PROFILE
STA: -0+50 - STA: 11+00
5165
5160
515$
5150
5145
5140
5135
5130
5125
5,2�
5115
5110
11+00 10+50 10+00 9+50 9+00 8+50 8+00 7+50 7+00 6+50 6+00 5+50 5+00 4+50 4+00 3+50 3+00 2+50 2+00 1+50 1+00 0+50 0+00
5165
5160
5155
5150
5145
5140
5135
5130
5125
5120
5115
5110
-0+50
r-� ��'�- .�
- ----�=��`=1
L_____•,.J
KEYMAP
LEGEND I
\
EXISTING PROPERTV BOUNDARV �
PROPOSE� PROPERTV LINE
— - - - — RIGHT OF WAV
------ EXISTINGEASEMENT
- — - PERMANENTEASEMENT
TEMPORARVCONST.EASEMENT
ti �--'�-i Ill I I WATERFITTING9
♦ THRUSTBLOCK
� BUTTERFLV VALVE
►I GATE VALVE �
30'W 30" WATER MAIN
2PW 24" WATER MAIN �
O
12'W 12" WATER MAIN _
� � CASINGPIPE
NOTES
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING
FEATt1RES THAT ARE NOT TO BE REMOVE� ADJACENT
TO THE CONSTRUCTION AftEA INCLLIDING. BUT NOT
LIMITED TO. PAVEMENT, PRIVATE FENCES, ABOVE
GROUND OR UNDERGROUN� UTILITIES. STRUCTURES,
ANDUNDERGROUNOFOUNDATIONS.THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL �E RESPONSIBLE FOR ANV
DAMAGE TNAT SHOULO OCCUR TO ANY ON-SITE,
OFF-SITE, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE FACILITV OR FEATURE
AS A RESl1LT OF THE CONSTRUGTION PROCESS FOR
THIS PROJECT.
2. ALL WATERLINE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER FORT
COLLINS LOVELAND WATER OISTRICT STANDARO
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS, LATEST EOITION.
3. MINIMUM DEPTH OF COVER OVER WATER MAINS SHALL
BE 5'. MA%IMUM COVER SHALL BE 6' UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTEO ON THESE �RAWINGS.
4. 24" 8 30" PVC WATER LINES SHALL BE G900 PRESSl1RE
CLASS 125 PVC PIPE. ALL OIP WATER LINES SHALL BE
THICKNESS CLASS 53.
5. MAINTAINIO'HORI20NTALANDIB"VERTICALMINIMUM
SEPAR4TION BETWEEN ALL SANITARV SEWER 8
WATER MAINS & SERVICES. SHOULD THE WATER LINE
CROSS UNDER EITHER STORM DRAIN OR SANITARV
SEWER, THE STORM OR SANITARV SHALI BE
coNCRErE ENcnsEo wR io� oN EirHER sioE oF rHE
CROSSING.
6. BENDS ANO FITTINGS ON ALl NEW WATER MAIN
(EXCEPT WHERE CONNECTING TO EXISTING MAINS)
SHALL USE MECHANICALLV RESTRAINEO JOINTS PER
FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT
STANDARDSANDSPECIFIEDLENGTHS. ALLFIRE
HV�R4NT LEA05 AN� FIRE SERVICES TO B111L�INGS
SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH JOINT RESTRAINTS PER
THESAMERE�UIREMENTS. WETTAPLOCATION$
SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THRUST BLOCKS.
]. WHERE RESTRAINE� JOINTS FOR HORIZONTAL ANO
VERTICAL FITTINGS OVERLAP RESTRAINTS SHALL BE
EXTENDED USING THE LONGEST LENGTH.
B. BACKf�OW PREVENTION FOR WATER SERVICES SHALI
BE PROVIDED WITHIN EACH BUIL�ING AN� NO
CONNECTIONS TO THE WATER SERVICES (INCLUDING
IRRIGATION TAPS) SHALL BE MAOE PRIOR TO THE
BACKFIOW PREVENTION �EVICE.
9. ALL BURIED PVC PIPING HAS BEEN DESIGNEO TO A
WORKING PRESSURE OF 110 psi. THI515 BASED ON
FULL WATER TANK CONOITIONS AT THE TRILBV TANKS
AND INCLUDES AN AD�ITIONAL 50 psi SAFETV FACTOR
ALLOWANCE. BURIEDPVCPIPINGASNOTBEEN
DESIGNED TO A'DEAp HEAD' TAFT HILI PUMP STATION
PUMPING CONDITION WITH SUCTION PRESSURES
GENER4TED BV FOOTHILLS TANK (APPROX. 185 psij.
10. ALLBURIEDPIPINGTOBEINSTALLEOINTYPES
TRENCH WITH FULLV BE��ED STRUCTURAL BACKFILL
TO PIPE CROWN (DIP AN� PVC)
11. LIMITPIPEJOINT�EFLECTIONT080%�MAX.)OF
MANUFACTl1RERS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE.
iv
i
I
0 25' S0' 100'
SCALE: �"= 50'
�
Z
J
� _
�
z
� O
V
}
. H
J
�
�
V.,/
��
P
��� ,
�� �5 �
Q�� e�P'�cy
�
�
Y
Z
QL
I�
/�\
1��
J
LV
�
V
L
O
\Y
0
�
J
U
�
w
J
�
QN
Ll�
��y 0
W O
�^Q
LL �
Z �
Qc O
G O
� �
m Q
� �
� �
_
U
Z
0
�
PREPARE�FOR:
FCLWD
sueMirTn� �nre:
asiosi2o2a
sca�e
SHEETNUMBER
C9
8 oF 18 snEEis
UTILITY CONSULTING
Appendix F
Easement Description
PERMENANT EASEMENT DESCRIPTION
Exhibit-A
(1 of 3)
A portion of City of Fort Collins Property, recorded December 11, 2001 under Reception No.
2001112633 of the Records of Larimer County, situate in the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of
Section Ten (10), Township Six North (T.6N), Range Sixty-nine West (R.69W.) of the Sixth
Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), Larimer County, State of Colorado and being more particularly
described as follows:
Permanent Easement Parcel 1:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Section 10 and assuming the West line of the
(SW1/4), as bearing North 02°02'30" East being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane
Coordinate System, North Zone, North American Datum 1983/2011, a distance of 2672.88 feet
with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto;
THENCE North 45°54'06" East a distance of 43.30 feet to the intersection of the Northerly Right
of Way of West Trilby Road and the Easterly Right of Way of South Taft Hill Road, and to the
Parcel 1 POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE North 02°02'30" East along the easterly Right of Way of South Taft Hill Road a
distance of 92.28 feet;
THENCE North 90°00'00" East a distance of 84.63 feet to a Point of Curvature (PC) along the
Westerly edge of an existing 30.00-foot waterline easement recorded at Reception No.
200 1 1 20740 of the Records of Larimer County Clerk and Recorder;
The following Two courses and distances are along said Westerly edge of waterline
easement.
THENCE along a non-tangent curve concave to the West a distance of 24.79 feet, said curve has
a radius of 2485.00 feet, a Delta of 00°34'18", and is subtended by a Chord bearing of South
O1 °45'21" West a distance of 24.79 feet to a Point of Tangency (PT);
THENCE South 02°02'30" West a distance of 67.13 feet to the Northerly Right of Way of West
Trilby Road and to a point hereinafter referred to as POINT "A";
THENCE South 89°45'42" West along said Northerly Right of Way a distance of 84.77 feet to
the Parcel 1 POINT OF BEGINNING;
Said easement contains 7,800 sq. ft. / 0.179 acres more or less (+/-), and is subject to any rights-
of-way or other easements of record as now existing on said described parcel of land.
Together With Permanent Easement Parcel2:
COMMENCING at the aforesaid POINT "A";
THENCE North 89°45'42" East along the Northerly Right of Way of West Trilby Road a
distance of 30.02 feet to the Easterly edge of an existing 30.00-foot waterline easement recorded
at Reception No. 2001120740 of the Records of Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, and to the
Parcel 2 POINT OF BEGINNING;
The following Two courses and distances are along said Easterly edge of waterline
easement.
THENCE North 02°02'30" East a distance of 65.93 feet to a PC;
THENCE along the arc of a curve concave to the West a distance of 25.86 feet, said curve has a
Radius of 2515.00 feet, a Delta of 00°35'21" and is subtended by a Chord bearing North
O1 °44'49" East a distance of 25.86 feet to a PT;
THENCE North 90°00'00" East a distance of 16.80 feet;
,D 0 C C
�
;�i c;�:
ro ' �10 �
��. �� z� :;�
�
��+ /•. ^��,.J'�l<' , .
P:\20230117\DESCRIPTIONS\20230117EX O�.i
(2 of 3)
THENCE South O1 °O 1'03" West a distance of 91.68 feet to the Northerly Right of Way of West
Trilby Road;
THENCE South 89°45'42" West along said Northerly Right of Way a distance of 18.31 feet to
the Parcel2 POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said easement contains 1,605 sq. ft. / 0.037 acres more or less (+/-), and is subject to any rights-
of-way or other easements of record as now existing on said described parcel of land.
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE
I, Paul B. Groves, a Colorado Registered Professional Land Surveyor do hereby state that this
Property Description was prepared under my personal supervision and checking, and that it is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
O�:YyY�Yr��;,�]
.`�"� �`i�
'�' 3 20 `
.y�^.� ,l y`f.'�'
.,,� a z� ����
Paul B. Groves - on behalf of�R'iii
Colorado Registered Professional
Land Surveyor #38209
KING SURVEYORS, INC.
650 Garden Drive
Windsor, Colorado 80550
(970) 686-5011
Inc.
P:\20230ll7\DESCRIPTIONS\20230117EX 07.docx
PERMANENT EASEMENT I EXHIBIT A I City of Fort Collins Property
SW� S10 T.6N. R.69W.
PAGE 3 OF 3
� WEST QUARTER CORNER
SECTION 10 T.6N. R.69W.
\
\
LINE TABLE
LINE BEARING LENGTH
L1 N45'S4'06"E 43.30'
L2 S02'02'30"W 67.13'
L3 N89'45'42"E 30.02'
I I L4 NO2'02'30"E 65.93'
� � L5 N90'00'00"E 16.80'
� � � L6 S89'45'42"W 18.31'
� �
� � � �
�I � � � �
� Q � � CITY OF FORT COLLINS
N �y I I
�,,� ~ 30' WATERLINE � � PROPERTY
RECORDED 12/11/2001
M`�, � REC NO S200N120740 I~� REC NO. 2001112633
N
N� � I I
Z� I � � PEIZMANENT
� _ N90_00_00=E_84.s3' _� L5 EASEMENT
N — I N�—�
�, � U V' PARCEL 2
Z N I I I� 1,605 sq. ft.
a �� PERMANENT � � I�; 0.03� A�Yes ��
� � � w EASEMENT ( I I� C��r1 1�
N I ►�+ P A R C E L 1 ( � � o S�
Q p 7,800 sq. ft. (� �� o
m I Z 0.179 acres ( I � N
O I
� PARCEL 1 P O I N T " A" ( L3 � I
POINT OF BEGINNING � _ _ _
� � S89'45'42"W 84.77' L6
I ��' PARCEL 2
I� -- -- POINT OF BEGINNING — I�
�
S89'45'42"W 1346.83' ��
SOUTHWEST CORNER i.�'STTRILBY ROA.D
TRI—STATE TRANS SECTION 10 T.6N. R.69W.
B.1553 P.449 POINT OF COMMENEMENT
° � ° WEST 1/16TH CORNER I
I SECTIONS 10/15
T.6N. R.69W.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
CURVE TABLE
CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD CH BEARING
C1 24.79' 2485.00' 034'18" 24.79' S01'45'21 "W
C2 25.86' 2515.00' 0'35'21" 25.86' N01'44'49"E
��
Paul B. Groves — On Behalf Of King Surveyors
Colorado Licensed Professional
Land Surveyor #38209
KING SURVEYORS
650 E. Garden Drive I Windsor, Colorado 80550
phone: (970) 686-5011 I fax: (970) 686-5821
email: contact@KingSurveyors.com
r
.
�
J
50 25 0 50
SCALE IN FEET
SCALE: 1 "=50'
PROJECT N0:20230117
DATE: 06/1 1 /24
CLIENT: RESPEC
DWG:20230117EX_07
DRAWN: PG CHECKED: PG
UTILITY CONSULTING
Appendix G
COEnviroScreen - Disproportionately Impacted
Communities Map
'0
�
�PmjeRLo[aHon
�\
�
oisprovortiona�eiy impacvea communiry �may zaza�
�'
� mme
aeopieorcoor
� no�sme a�me�
� IJngulsllcalrylsoaPc
y .eaeai cedsr �dasnce�o�
moai �ams
Envxascm,enscore
More ��an one ca�egory
Wintlso�
■
UTILITY CONSULTING
Appendix H
Prairie Dog Management Plan
�
1
1
MEMORANDUM
To:
Ms. Sharon Appell
Technical Project Manager, Environmental
City of Fort Collins, Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 N. College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
cc: Project Central File 11787.23001.004
From: Sarah Itz
Biologist
RESPEC
5540 Tech Center Drive, Suite 100
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
Date: August 7, 2024
Subject: Trilby Tank Project - Prairie Dog Management Plan
This prairie dog management plan was prepared by RESPEC for the proposed impact area on
City of Fort Collins property at the northeast corner of Trilby Road at Taft Hill Road that would
result from part of the proposed Trilby Tank project. The majority of the project would occur
west of this impact area, along the north side of Trilby Road to the proposed water tank
located approximately 0.6 miles west of Taft Hill Road. The impact area on City property is
approximately 0.28 acres and is shown on the figure at the end of this memo.
Field investigations on the impact area in April 2024 found black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys
ludovicianus) occupying the flat portion of the impact area. Along the west and south edges
of the impact area, there is a slope that goes up to the Taft Hill Road and Trilby Road
roadways and intersection. No prairie dogs or prairie dog holes were observed on the sloped
areas.
The City of Fort Collins Decision-Making Flowchart for prairie dog management (attached)
was consulted to help determine the best course of action. Since the impact area lies within a
property under development review application and the affected prairie dog colony is less
5540TECHCENTEROAIVE than one acre, no City permit or Colorado Parks and Wildlife permit would be required for
suiTE �oo prairie dog removal. In this situation, there are two options for prairie dog removal:
COLORA�O SPAINGS,CO 80919
719227.0072
/ ,
1. Trap and Donate: CPW allows trapping for donation to raptor centers and Black Footed
Ferret recovery programs, and
2. Fumigation: fumigate the colony and properly dispose of the remains.
respec.com 1178723001.004
RESp��
MS. SHAAON APPELL // 2
AUGUST7.2024
Since the impact area is small (0.28 acre with a portion that is unsuitable for prairie dogs), the preferred
! method of prairie dog removal is fumigation.
The Colorado State University Extension Managing Prairie Dogs factsheet (attached) provides
information, guidance, and best management practices on this type of prairie dog removal. The Fort
Collins-Loveland Water District who is leading this project will follow the best management practices as
described in this worksheet. A local, certified exterminator will be used to fumigate the burrows within
the impact area using pressurized exhaust. The Pressurized Exhaust Rodent Controller utilizes
compressed exhaust collected from a small internal combustion engine. Upon collection, the exhaust is
cooled and compressed for distribution into burrows. The exterminator will utilize this machine to fill
burrows with engine exhaust, which contains a high level of carbon monoxide gas. Once a burrow is
filled with the gas, it is plugged with soil whereby all animals in the burrow should succumb to the gas.
After the initial treatment, the exterminator will perform two follow-up inspections and re-treat all open
burrows found during that time.
After fumigation, a completion report will be submitted summarizing the management activities that
occurred, stating that no prairie dogs remain within the area of impact, and authorizing earthmoving
activities to proceed.
When all prairie dog removal activities are complete, a silt fence is recommended to be installed along
the northern and eastern edges of the impact area to prevent recolonization immediately before and
during construction. Once construction is complete, prairie dogs will be free to re-colonize the impact
area.
Attachments: City of Fort Collins Decision-Making Flowchart, CSU Extension Factsheet
REsp�c
, .,.�,
,r .
� � � � ' � �.�
. ��
� r ���
�� � ;: ,
� �
,
�
. �
� .� �� ���y
� _ �
� .- _'
' !"S
+ '�
• ��
�' il ' -- —
_' �� ,�. ► �
� �
� �� �
► '' 1 ��
�' � � � :frf' �
' —: ^ a'/.6�iGS
� M
, A �
�
,.. � �
___� r�*
��
MS. SHAAON APPELL // 3
AUGUST7.2024
�.
, �
� - �I�''� ��� �
u�
� ��,
�� `� �4
TR� LI BY R� O�A�D �
�
QI �
a � ��►_�-.►r � — a'�'wr�w�
' � - � �
JI � '
�
I =JI I
� � f ��� ' � � � ._
�j
�
� ��
t �- 1 � � � — �. � ,
5 p
LEGEND l
►
� Proposed Impact Area • . � �.
Sloped Area (Unsuitable , ;r,i'� ., *,
Prairie Dog Habitat) ' � '" `'f�
��
N PROPOSED IMPACT AREA ColoradoSprings,co
0 45 90 5540 Te�n ce��e� o., s��ce �oo
� W�E TRILBY TANK AND WATERLINE PROJECT ColoradoSprings, CO 80919
FEET V Pno�e �is.zv o0�2
$ PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT PLAN www.resaec.com
Figure 1, Proposed impact area on City of Fort Collins property.
Fort Collins
�
Prairie Dog Management in Fort Collins
���.���c�n-���i���� �'�+�wchart
Updated June 2024
Trap and Donate*
CPW allows trapping for donation to
raptor centers and Black Footed Ferret
,...�••''�� recovery programs; a re ort is
required within 5 business days of the
donation.
'• or
'•.
��'•. Fumigate
�'•. Fumigate the colony and properly
� dispose of the remains. See CSU
extension for more information.
On-Site Habitat Enhancements
.•
.•
��.
.�
.•' or
r Trap and Donate
Trapped prairie dogs will be donated to a
licensed raptor rehabilitation program or
ivaturairesource
protection
standards apply
�..• the Black Footed Ferret Recovery
��.
••' Program
,.-'��
or .�
�.• Fumigate
� �) .•'�� Fumigate the colony according to the
•.�� Prairie Dog Management Plan ��.�' �.������..
'• Approved by the City, this plan ..•' �...••��••" lan. Payment in-lieu funds natural areas
� •••'"" restoration and habitat management
M/TIGATES for lost ecological ' ••.��
.�
value** �''••.�r�. and
-� '�i•
'���'••.�,� Prevent Recolonization
See FAQ for more information
* It is iffegaf to trap, transport and refocate prairie dogs without a permit
** Mitigation for a specific project is subject to approvaf by the City Environmentaf Planner as part of the development review process
Colorado State University
Extension
Manag�ng Pra�r�e Dogs
Fact Sheet No. 6.506
By W.F. Andelt and S.N. Hopper*
Prairie dogs occupy an estimated two mil-
lion acres in North America. Three species
of prairie dogs are found in Colorado. The
Ulack-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicia-
nus) lives on the eastern plains, Gunnison's
prairie dog (Cynomysgunnisoni) in the
southwestern third of the state, and the white-
��
� - �.
z .
' ;yi� i:'
i �"'
�.� • • ;1�
�r - � `�:��� ����� �
.�.• -� ► -:�lf►i
� . . � " �� � �'' ; 1.' ' y
T _ � w :��,.�':
���.�ti � i� ,'.� -.r y,r . � °I
���� ~� �� :v,� Y- ,
,4 � r���' I• /!'��3 !. �.��"�'��� ��
Figure 3: Bladc tailed prairie dog
*Original publication by W.F. Ande/t, Colorado State
Universiry, professor emeritus, department of fish, wildlife
and conservation biology; S.N. Hopper. Reviewed and
updated (12/12) by Laura Quakenbush, Colorado
Department of Agriculture and Colorado Division of Parks
and Wildlife; Tina Jackson and Amy Seglund, Colorado
Division of Parks and Wildlife. Reviewed and revised
3/76 by S. Bokan, Smal/ Acreage Coordinator Bou/der
County; K. Crumbaker, Ag and Natura/ Resources Agent
Larimer County; T. Hoesli, E�ctension County Director
Grand County; D. Lester, Extension County Director Park
County and 1. Shonle, Extension Counry Director Gilpin
County (3/16)
� `` � -
,. . .
� -• �
. .-:
Natural Resources Series � Wildlife
tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) in the
northwestern third of the state.
Prairie dogs are relatively large burrow-
ing ground squirrels that weigh 1-1/2 to 3
pounds and are 14 to 17 inches long. Prairie
dogs have reddish tan fur, large eyes, shart
ears and broad, rounded heads.
Biology and Social
Organization
Prairie dogs form colonies commonly
referred to as prairie dog towns. Coteries,
small groups within the town, are generally
composed of one adult male, three adult
females and six offspring. Prairie dogs within
a coterie defend their territory within the
larger town. They live in burrows about 10
yards apart, 3 to 14 feet deep, and 10 to more
than 100 feet long. A mound 3 to 10 feet
across and 6 to 12 inches high at the entrance
of the burrow prevents water from rushing
in and serves as a lookout station. A density
of 35 black-tailed prairie dog mounds per
acre is common, although up to 95 mounds
have been reported. Burrow systems have one
to three entrances. Black-tailed prairie dog
numbers vary from aUout five per acre in late
winter to 20 per acre after the birth of pups in
spring. Prairie dog spring densities can be as
high as 35 animals per acre.
i�� i.�+�+�v���`� ''
��"•N'' �. . � '-" `_ -*,.= i
kt•' � - R' � � �' b =..�., - .,
III, � . .,. 4 � : : . --= `` ..
µ ����. f. .'�._-.
Figure 3: Black tailed prairie dogs
yi
�► J ` �--
, ��� �'�
�
Quick Facts
• Three species of prairie dogs
occur in Colorado.
• Prairie dogs and their burrows
serve as important hosts for
numerous other animals.
• Prairie dogs can damage
rangeland and occasionally
harbor plague.
• Control problem prairie dogs
by relocation, visual barriers,
shooting, poison grain bait,
and fumigation.
• Elimination of prairie dogs
does not guarantee the
recovery of productive
rangeland. Additional efforts
must be taken to restore
the affected range and
grasslands.
OColorado State University
Extension. 3/16.
www. ext. co I ostate. ed u
a� o ;
o� ;
� �
� u� � ■ White tailed Black ta���eA �Gunmson
Figure 1: Distribution map of the three species
of prairie dogs in Colorado'
� � ��
Prairie dogs are active only during the
day. White-tailed and Gunnison's prairie
dogs hibernate from about October to
March, depending on elevation. Black-
tailed prairie dogs do not hibernate, but will
stay below ground for several days during
cold cloudy weather. They have one litter of
three to eight young per year in March or
April. The gestation period is 28 to 34 days.
Pups venture above ground when they are
five to six weeks old. Dispersal of year-old
juveniles and a few adults takes place in late
spring. Most prairie dogs travel less than
two miles, but a few may move up to six
miles.
Effects on Rangeland
The role of prairie dogs in reducing
available range forage for livestock is not
well studied. Several factors can influence
forage reduction, including geographic
location, rainfall, dominant grass species
and duration of prairie dog habitation.
Recent research suggests effects ranging
from 20 to 30 percent less forage to an
increase in the percentage of grass species
preferred by livestock.
Ecological and Economic
Importance
Prairie dog burrows serve as hoines for
burrowing owls, cottontail rabbits, rattle-
snakes and other animals. In Oklahoma,
89 vertebrate species were associated with
prairie dog towns. Prairie dogs are a major
food source for predators, including the
endangered black-footed ferret, badgers,
coyotes, foxes, prairie falcons, ferruginous
hawks, and eagles.
The burrowing activity of prairie dogs
provides the greatest ecological benefit by
decreasing soil compaction, increasing wa-
ter intake, aerating the soil and promoting
soil formation.lheir foraging vegetation
and clipping activities can alter the vegeta-
.y , ,e:;.:. .'`"' -- '�
r .:w '�al..� - .,YL ... .e�l-+r.' �-,..,�^-re
� Ai► -_ .=ar^^�'" �'-s --p.v� -.;'+s
� �.�
II�" - .,f� _" �,,�
�"` =.:-x- •'�jt -�,.-
�. �` �..,�: �'
_� _.
� ��
m' :_ '' aE ,- 4
,: s�
�� �
�� ;::�°: -�z� :�. ;�, �. �._
�����.� ��. �* �.
�� . _ `�;�
Figure 4: Prairie dog mound and burrow
tion in the colony by favoring certain grass
and forb species. Grass species favored by
prairie dogs include western wheatgrass,
buffalograss and grama grasses. Prairie
dogs also provide recreation for photogra-
phers, hunters, and naturalists.
� ' q ��_� �
�T.yp.t
, ',,� .
.�;
I# .�,,:' �'
�,, �� .
� 1`' , . ....
�
''i
�
- ,� �:.
�-a';;
��
�°�`�
,� -
4��> �
>'Y �
�� i
S r;�'
;:
�
�� ;
� �
�. ''� ._ t�
Figure S: Prairie dog mound and burrow
-�
� , r �
; � " � •� � "�1,
� . . i:'�• ,� - • ,
� � _ �,� �' r . s"�'
' �� _ � . - . � ' .
� -
-r h_ �
i � �
Figure 6: A aater mound formed in moist soil. Note
the nose prints made in side of mound when the
prairie dog compacted the soil.
�. � ,�y� �r��,�,�,*;xv k�y �"
� ,`� B$�� - � �" A
i e � �. ' �y.
��o a�'. _ - - '-�_
. 's Po �w, �. �
C {� ,�.�,
� � =r
°�
4 �,�: �� � } �
`'` l � � (*` . ��,� Y4cc
f `� � ��:
��� m . .'.
�, ,;�t " �?. -�'
r ... y �i . , .
e �4� .� T �. �
s+' �e-�''�4 �`�: • "' .
� +�-
,� �.,d�'�.. ';�k.
� :.. _ , �
, � � :. t � �.�� 1.
,r .�,�' �' �ti �f �� c
r, ��,.? � �?'� ,����r2�'.'��
Figure 7: Weedy area around mound wliere
previously existing vegetation was removed by the
prairie dogs.
;� Health Risks
�' �b '� Prairie dogs are hosts for fleas, making
��; � �
„�� � them susceptible to plague. Plague may be
�'�' transmitted to humans via flea bites. Early
`�_ symptoms of plague include swollen and
s''�"` tender lymph nodes, chills and fever. Early
�` diagnosis and treatment is imperative.
When walking through suspected plague
areas apply an insect repellent to socks
and pant cuffs before tucking pants inside
Uoots.
Black-Footed Ferrets
It is illegal to kill a black-footed ferret,
an endangered species that feeds almost ex-
clusively on prairie dogs. It is estimated that
one female ferret and her young require
about 200 prairie dogs for food per year.
The black-footed ferret weighs 1 1/2 to 3
pounds and is 21 to 23 inches long. It has a
black mask, Ulack feet and legs, and a black-
tipped tail. Sides are a pale yellow buff that
is lighter toward the underside of the body.
The forehead, muzzle and throat are almost
white, whereas the top of the head and
middle of the back are brown.
�� � � ��
16 inches apart E-.. Direction of travel
a„► `�'�
�- ' H
'� �� -��
-4h �`.:;:.o=
�� t� - � 'i-.: � -�''
� _ n; .��
Figure 8: Ferret tracks. Top: in the snow. Bottom:
Front and back feet. Illustration by Vivian
Drewien.
Do not confuse the black-footed fer-
ret with the European ferret, which has
longer and darker fur on the back with an
entirely black tail; the mink, which usually
is uniformly dark brown; or the long-tailed
weasel, which is sinaller and has a chocolate
brown body with pale yellow underside.
Black-footed ferrets seldom are ob-
served because they occur in low densities
and primarily are active at night. However,
their presence can be determined by the
occurrence of ramps or ferret tracks (Figure
8).
Notify Colorado Parks and Wildlife or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when
black-footed ferrets are present.
Black-Footed Ferret Surveys
A black-footed ferret survey, following
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines,
is required in most areas before alumimim
phosphide tablets and gas cartridges can be
used for prairie dog control.
Conduct the survey between July 1
through October 31 and less than 30 days
before using a fumigant. Work at night
using spotlights. Surveys can be conducted
by biologists trained in black-footed ferret
survey techniques. For a list of certified
biologists, contact the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in Grand Junction at (970)
243-2778 or Denver at (303) 275-2370.
A landowner may be exempt from the
survey if any of the following conditions
exist: a survey was conducted and no ferrets
were found; there are less than 80 acres
occupied by Ulack-tailed prairie dogs or
200 acres occupied by white-tailed prairie
dogs within a 4.3 mile radius of the control
site; or the control is conducted in an urban
area.
Management Methods
Several alternatives for prairie dog
management are available, including
trapping, barriers, shooting, using poison
baits, and using fumigants (poison gas).
Relocation
The Uiggest obstacle to prairie dog
relocation is finding release sites. A permit
is required before prairie dogs can be
relocated. Contact your nearest Colorado
Parks and Wildlife office to start the
process.
Trapping and Barriers
Prairie dogs can be captured with
double-door cage traps baited with a horse
sweet feed miY, flushed from burrows with
soap and water, or removed from bur-
rows with a large vacuum truck. All three
methods are expensive and their long-term
effectiveness is largely unknown. Sur-
vival of prairie dogs flushed from burrows
and those relocated to active towns also
is unknown. However, releasing prairie
dogs into an estaUlished colony likely will
increase stress on resident and relocated
prairie dogs.
Shooting
Intensive shooting of small prairie dog
colonies during February and March will
sometimes manage populations. It disrupts
reproductive activities and removes
individual animals. Follow good hunter
safety practices and local regulations when
using shooting as a management tool.
Shooting may induce bait shyness.
Rodenticide safety
When dealing with any rodent prob-
lem, utilize all management techniques
to resolve the problem and do not rely
solely on rodenticides. Set realistic goals
such as minimizing the rodent number on
your property by using exclusion methods
and eliminating desirable habitat or food
sources. You'll never eliminate all prairie
dogs. When using any rodenticide always
read and follow the label and guidelines
and be sure you understand them prior to
use to minimize off target (i.e. raptors, dogs,
and cats) poisoning.
Rodenticides are meant to kill rodents
but will also kill other animals if used
improperly. Western Burrowing Owls
are commonly found in prairie dog towns
throughout Colorado. With the restora-
tion of endangered Black-footed Ferrets, it
is critical that properties are surveyed for
their presence prior to any rodenticide ap-
plication. Fines and tickets can be assessed
for causing the deaths of these endangered
animals.
Steps for safe use of rodenticides
-Positively identify the pest and deter-
mine all techniques that can be used to
deter the pest such as habitat modification
and exclusion.
-Choose the most effective, least toxic
rodenticide to minimize potential non-
target poisoning.
-If you choose to use a rodenticide:
oRead and follow the label.
oAbide by any limitation of use (for ex-
ample: use only Uetween Nov. 1 and March
30) and other label restrictions
oWear proper protective clothing and
equipment.
oDon't smoke or eat while mixing or ap-
plying a rodenticide, and wash thoroughly
after application.
oMix and apply only the quantity you
need.
Reference: EPA Citizen's Guide to
Pesticide Safety http://www.epa.gov/
safep estcontrol/citizens-guide-pest-control-
and-pesticide-safety
oAlways store rodenticides away from
pets, children and wildlife.
oAlways locate rodenticides so that
off-target species cannot access them (for
example: children, pets, wildlife). Use en-
closed bait boxes or make sure rodenticide
is deposited deep in the tunnel or locate
rodenticides in locked areas inaccessible to
children, pets or wildlife.
oNever store rodenticides near food
items for human, pet or livestock.
oFollow the label instructions on carcass
surveillance.
Poison Baits and Fumigants
Several different types of pesticides can
be used for prairie dog control in Colo-
rado, ii�cluding grain baits and products
that generate poison gases (fumigants). All
of these products are federally restricted
use pesticides, except for the USDA gas
cartridge. Landowners who plan to do
their own control must have a valid private
pesticide applicator license from Colorado
Department of Agriculture [(303) 869-
9063] before purchase or use of a restricted
use pesticide. Landowners can also hire a
commercial applicator. Commercial ap-
plicators must be licensed in the `outdoor
vertebrate' category.
Far each product used, the applicator
must read and follow the written directions
and restrictions provided with the product.
Label requirements change with time and
differ among products. The inforination
below does not provide complete instruc-
tions, and is not a substitute for the label
directions that came with the product to be
used.
Many other species of wildlife can oc-
cupy prairie dog burrows. All prairie dog
poisoning or gassing operations should
be preceded by carefully examining each
burrow prior to treatment to make sure it
is being actively used by prairie dogs and is
not occupied by any other species of wild-
life. Applicators should read and follow the
additional label guidance to minimize risk
to non-target wildlife at:
http://cpw. state.co.us/Documents/
WildlifeSpecies/Species0 fConcern/
B1ackTailedPrairieDog/PDF/ PrairieDog-
Protocol_MinimizingRisktoNonTargetSpe-
cies3 -05-07.pdf#search=minimizing%20
risk%20non %20target%20species
Poison Grain Baits
Two types of poison grain baits can be
used for prairie dog control in Colarado:
zinc phosphide baits, and those containing
an anticoagulant poison. All poison grain
baits for prairie dog control are restricted
use pesticides, due to the hazard to other
species of animals. Many of the restrictions
and limitations on use are necessary to
prevent death or injury to non-target birds
and maminals, including wildlife, pets,
and livestock. These baits can only Ue used
for prairie dogs on rangeland, rangeland
and pasture, or rangeland and adjacent
non-crop areas (depending on the specific
product label).
Poison grain baits are effective only
when the prairie dogs' most desirable food,
green grass, has become dry and dormant.
Fall baiting generally is most successful
because prairie dogs eat grass seeds to build
fat reserves for the winter.
Baits Containing Zinc Phosphide
Several oat Uaits containing 2% zinc
phosphide are available for use in Colorado
(e.g. ZP AG Oats`", Prozap zinc phosphide
oat bait`", and USDAs zinc phosphide
on oats). Zinc phosphide is stable in dry
conditions, but reacts slowly with water
(including atinospheric moisture) to form
phosphine gas. When ingested by prairie
dogs, it reacts quickly with stomach acids
to release phosphine gas, which is quicldy
lethal to the prairie dog.
Zinc phosphide application is restricted
to July 1 through early winter, with the
specific end-date varying among products
(end of January or February). It is most suc-
cessful when applied between September
and November. Gunnison's prairie dog and
white-tailed prairie dog hibernate during
winter months. The species found on the
eastern prairie and along the Front Range,
the Ulack-tailed prairie dog, does not hi-
bernate, but is most active on warm sunny
days. Baiting should only occur when prai-
rie dogs are active. Some zinc phosphide
will be lost as phosphide gas if exposed to
rainfall or other moisture, so baiting should
occur only during settled weather.
Pre-baiting with steamed crimped oats
one to two days priar to baiting is required
for all zinc phosphide baits. When first
exposed to the bait, prairie dogs may take
a small taste, which will result in a rapid,
acute adverse effect. A prairie dog that
survives this initial exposure will become
`bait-averse' and won't attempt to feed on
such bait again. Pre-baiting is essential for
getting a lethal amount of bait consumption
and to prevent Uait aversion. Some products
restrict applications to rangeland to areas
with less than 50% ground cover.
To pre-bait, apply the untreated oats
by hand on the edge of each mound where
bare soil meets grass or to adjacent feed-
ing areas. Do not place bait on top of the
mound or down the burrow. Be sure to
monitor bait consumption. This is also
a good time to monitor for non-target
wildlife. If bait is not consumed after one
day, postpone application or use another
method of prairie dog control.
Do not apply poison bait in areas inhab-
ited by livestock and do not graze animals
in treated areas. Applicators must wear
waterproof gloves. Some product labels
require a respirator. Apply one teaspoon (4
grams) of zinc phosphide bait per mound.
Thinly scatter the treated bait in a 6-inch
bait spot, preferably during early morning.
Avoid placing treated bait in piles. Apply
only to burrows where the untreated bait
was consumed.
A typical prairie dog town requires
about 1/3 pound of zinc phosphide bait
per acre. Application of excess bait will not
improve control but will increase the risk
to non-target animals. Only apply poison
grain bait once per season. (Survivors of the
first attempt will be bait-shy.)
Check for and dispose of any spilled or
unused bait or observed animal carcasses.
Wear waterproof gloves when retrieving
carcasses or unused bait. Retrieved bait
or animal carcasses can be disposed of by
burying at least 18 inches deep.
Preferably purchase only the amount
needed per application. Stare bait ac-
cording to the label and only in original
container, in a dry place inaccessible to
children, pets and domestic animals.
When poison grain Uaits are applied ac-
cording to directions, they usually result in
an 80 to 90 percent reduction in prairie dog
numbers. Unsuccessful control generally is
due to the presence of green grass or failure
to pre-bait.
Baits Containing Anticoagulants:
Chlorophacinone (Rozol Prairie Dog Bait)
or Diphacinone (Kaput-D Prairie Dog Bait)
Both Rozol'" and Kaput-D`"' Prairie Dog
Baits are federally restricted use pesticides.
They can be used only for control of
black-tailed prairie dogs on rangeland and
adjacent noncrop areas. This species is
found on the eastern plains of Colorado. It
cannot be used on the species found west of
the Front Range of Colorado (Gunnison's
prairie dog or white-tailed prairie dog).
There are now enforceable endangered
species bulletins for anticoagulant prairie
dog baits for several Colorado counties.
You must check the EPA website to obtain
any county bulletins no less than 6 months
before applications are to occur. Product
can only be applied between October 1
and March 15 of the following year. (In
some counties, product cannot be applied
until November 1; see endangered species
protection bulletins for your county).
Apply'/4 cup (about 2 oz.) of bait at
least 6 inches down active prairie dog
burrows. Pre-baiting is not required for
these anticoagulants baits. The toxic effect is
slow-acting, so bait aversion will not occur.
Do not allow livestock to graze in treated
areas for 14 days after treatment and when
no bait is found above ground.
The applicator must return to the site
within 4 days after bait application, and
at 1 to 2 day intervals hereafter, to collect
and properly dispose of any bait or dead
or dying prairie dogs found on the surface.
Any dead or dying non-target species of
animals must be reported as described on
the product label. Continue to conduct
these searches for at least 2 weeks, but
longer if carcasses are still being found.
Carcass searches must be performed
using a line-transect method that
completely covers the baited area. Transect
center lines must be 200 feet or less apart
(less in more densely vegetated sites).
If prairie dog activity persists several
weeks or months after the bait was applied,
a second application of the same bait can be
made. This follow-up application can also
only occur between October 1 and March
15.
Fumigants
Two types of fumigants can be used
for prairie dog control in Colorado: those
containing aluminum phosphide or the
USDA gas cartridge. Aluminum phosphide
products are classified as restricted use pes-
ticides and gas cartridges are classified for
general use. Fumigants are most effective
when used in moist soils in early spring.
They are generally less effective in dry soil.
Fumigants will kill any other vertebrates
that may be occupying a treated burrow,
so burrows should be observed carefully to
make sure they are not occupied by bur-
rowing owls, black-footed ferrets, or other
wildlife. Burrows occupied by burrowing
owls can Ue identified by the white drop-
pings, pellets and feathers found around the
burrow opening. Do not treat burrows that
show signs of occupation by other species.
Only treat burrows that are in active use by
prairie dogs.
For fumigants to be effective, every
opening of each prairie dog burrow has to
be covered to contain the poison gas. This
makes fumigant application more labor
intensive than bait application. However,
baits require more follow-up, with post-
application monitoring and collection of
carcasses and unconsumed bait.
Fumigants are sometimes used as a
follow-up to a bait application. In these
cases, treating only active mounds can
greatly reduce the amount of fumigant
used. To identify active mounds, shovel or
blade the soil or place a dry cow chip over
all holes. Prairie dogs will unplug holes in
areas where they are active. It is important
to begin treatment the day after plugging
holes because one prairie dog will uncover
several holes in three or four days.
Aluminum Phosphide Fumigants
Trade names for aluminum phosphide
products include PhostoxinTM, FumitoxinT'",
PH3TM, and Weevil-cide,TM and most
brands are available as both a pellet and
a tablet. Products are sold in gas-tight,
resealable aluminum flasks, with both
a container label and an applicator's
manual. Aluminum phosphide reacts
with atinospheric moisture to produce
phosphine gas. Phosphine gas is highly
toxic to insects, burrowing pests,
humans, and other forms of animal life.
It may also ignite spontaneously in air at
concentrations above 1.8% volume/volume.
Use is prohiUited on residential
properties and nursing homes, schools
(except athletic fields), daycare facilities
and hospitals. It must not be applied into
a burrow system that is within 100 feet of
a building that is, or may be, occupied by
humans and/or domestic animals.
Aluminum phosphide can be used for
prairie dog control only on agricultural
areas, orchards, non-crop areas (such
as pasture and rangeland), golf courses,
athletic fields, airports, cemeteries,
rights-of-way, earthen dams, parks and
recreational areas and other non-residential
institutional or industrial sites. Pellets
or tablets must be applied directly to
underground burrow systems.
Prior to treatment, the applicator must
prepare a fumigation management plan
(FMP) for each fumigation treatment. See
the applicator's manual for a checklist of
what must be included in each fumigation
management plan. An FMP sample for
burrowing rodents is also available at the
Colorado Department of Agriculture
website: www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/
a�Plants/CBON/ 1251623419342.
Examples of FMP's may also be
available from manufacturers. Commercial
applicators must provide the customer with
a copy of the FMP prior to treatment.
Applicators must post a sign at each
application site containing the signal
word DANGER/PELIGRO with skull and
crossbones, the name and EPA registration
number of the fumigant, and a 24 hour
emergency response number. Signs may be
removed 2 days after the final treatment.
When used in athletic fields or parks, the
signs must be posted at the entrances to the
treated site.
Flasks should always Ue opened in open
air because rarely they may flash upon
opening. Invert the container several times
then point the container away from the
face and Uody and slowly loosen the cap.
Never open these containers in a flammable
atmosphere.
Applicatars must wear dry gloves of
cotton or other material if contact with
tablets or pellets is lilcely. Gloves must
remain dry during use. Aerate used
gloves and other clothing that may be
contaminated in a well-ventilated area prior
to laundering.
The phosphine gas produced by
aluminum phosphide tablets is toxic to
all forms of animal life.
Do not use fumigants in burrows
occupied by black-footed ferrets,
burrowing owls, rabbits and other non-
target wildlife.
Locate all entrances to each burrow
system. Treat all entrances except for
those entrances you are sure connect to
already treated entrances. To use aluminum
phosphide, insert 2 to 4 tablets or 10 to
20 pellets as far back into the burrow as
possible. Use the lower rates for smaller
burrows and/or when soil moisture is high.
Pack the treated entrance with crumpled
paper and shovel soil to completely cover
the paper. The newspaper prevents the
fumigant from being covered and may
deter prairie dogs from digging out before
they die. Rocks, clods of soil, cardboard,
etc. may also be used. Be sure to seal
all untreated entrances by shoveling or
packing soil and/or sod to completely seal
the opening.
Inspect treated area 1 to 2 days
following treatment for signs of residual
activity of prairie dogs. Treat all reopened
burrow openings as described above.
Aluminum phosphide appears
to provide the best control when soil
temperatures are above 60 degrees F. It
cannot be used at or below 40 degrees
F. When applied properly, aluminum
phosphide routinely provides greater than
90 percent control.
The phosphine gas produced by
aluminum phosphide tablets is toxic to
all forms of animal life. Exposure through
inhalation produces symptoms such as a
pressing sensation in the chest, dizziness,
nausea, vomiting, and a rapid onset of
stupor. Expose affected people to fresh air
and provide immediate medical attention.
Transportation of aluminum phosphide
is governed by the U.S. Department of
Transportation rules and regulations
regarding hazardous materials. These
regulations are subject to change. If you
have any questions call Hazmat (Colorado
State Patrol Hazardous Materials Section) at
(303) 273-1900.
These products must be stored in a dry,
well-ventilated area away from heat, under
lock and key. Post as a pesticide storage
area. Do not store in buildings where
humans or domestic animals reside.
Transportation Regulations
Place placards on all four sides of
vehicle being used to transport fumigant.
Carry shipping papers containing the
following information: proper shipping
name (aluminum phosphide), hazard
class/division number (4.3), material
identification number (UN1397), packing
group designation (PG 1), subsidiary
hazards (poison 6.1 inhalation hazard), and
amount of product in quantity and total
gross weight.
Keep the aluminum phosphide in the
original canister and box.
Keep a log book if transporting
aluminum phosphide over 100 air miles.
The log book is a recard of duty for the
day, recorded in 15 minute intervals. If
transporting under 100 air miles, only a
time record must be kept. This includes
name of person transparting, date, time
started on duty, and time going off duty.
Carry a fire extinguisher with a rating
of lOB:C.
Prior to transporting aluminum
phosphide, the driver must be satisfied
that the vehicle is in safe operating order.
At the end of the day that the material
was transported, the driver must prepare
a written inspection report. The following
parts and accessories should be inspected
and reported on: service brakes including
trailer brake connections, parking (hand)
brake, steering mechanism, lighting devices
and reflectors, tires, horn, windshield
wipers, rear vision mirrors, coupling
devices, wheels and rims, and emergency
equipment.
The report should identify the vehicle
and list any defects or deficiencies found.
If none are found the report should so
indicate. Correct any defects or deficiencies
before operating the vehicle again and note
the corrections in the report. The report
should be signed by the driver. Make two
copies of the report. Keep one copy in the
vehicle until the next time an inspection
report is required, and keep one copy at
the driver's place of business for at least
three months from the date the report was
prepared.
In addition to these pre- and post-
trip inspections, a more in-depth annual
inspection is required. Information
pertaining to this inspection may be
obtained by calling Hazmat at (303) 273-
1900.
Have $1,000,000 insurance if
transporting aluminum phosphide in
a vehicle with a greater than 10,000
pound gross vehicle weight rating or if
transporting over a state line.
The driver must be over 21 years old.
USDA gas cartridge
The gas cartridge is the only pesticide
for prairie dog control that is not a
restricted use pesticide. Gas cartridges are
ignited with a fuse and burn, producing
smoke. Prairie dogs are killed primarily
by the carbon mono�de produced. It can
Ue used in open fields, non-crop areas,
rangelands, reforested areas, lawns and golf
courses.
Once ignited, cartridges will burn
vigorously until completely spent. Burning
cartridges are capable of causing severe
burns, and can ignite dry grass, leaves and
other combustible material. Do not use
in or under buildings, near flammable
material, or when either the soil or the
vegetation in the area to be treated is
extremely dry. Gas cartridges will not give
satisfactory control if the soil is dry.
Locate and plug all entrances to the
Uurrow system except the entrance selected
for treatment, and have the material needed
to plug this entrance ready. To use the gas
cartridge, punch the fuse-end cap of the
cartridge at the points marked with a nail at
least 1/8" in diameter. Insert the fuse in the
center hole of the cartridge, with at least 3
inches of fuse exposed. The minimum burn
time far these fuses is 5 seconds.
Hold cartridge away from face and
body, then light fuse. Once the fuse is
burning well, place cartridge, fuse-end
first, as far into the burrow as possiUle. Or
gently roll the cartridge as far back into the
burrow opening as possible.
Immediately plug the opening with
moist soil or a plug of sod placed grass-
side down to form an air-tight seal. Do not
cover or smother the cartridge. Cover all
cracks in soil where smoke escapes.
Vegetation Recovery after
Extermination
Prairie dog extermination does
not guarantee productive vegetation
recovery. Additional steps must Ue taken
to rehabilitate the vegetation in evacuated
prairie dog towns.
To speed recovery, level mounds with
a land plane, blade or offset disc set just
above the ground surface. To allow the
grass and root system recovery, exclude
livestock from the area for at least one
growing season, and reseed the area with
grass.
Because prairie dogs do not thrive in tall
grass, careful management of grass through
proper stocking rates can discourage re-
invasion by prairie dogs. Prairie dogs often
establish colonies in areas where livestock
congregates. To distribute grazing pressure
evenly, move watering sites and place salt
and minerals in areas that are underused by
livestock.
Visual barriers constructed from burlap
or windrows of sinall pine trees have slowed
colony expansion. Barriers usually are
constructed from a woven plastic material.
The use of visual barriers is limited due
to high construction and maintenance
costs. Raptor perches, artificial cover for
predators, and predator odors generally
have been ineffective in reducing prairie
dog numbers.
'Distribution Map: Redrawn based on Armstrong,
David M., Fitzgerald, James P., and Meaney, Carron A.,
2011. Mammnls of Colorado 2nd ed.: Denver Museum
of Nature & Science and University Press of Colorado.
Colorado State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture aud Colorado counties cooperating. CSU Extension
programs are available to all without discrimination. No endorsement of products mentioned is inte��ded nor is
criticism implied of products not mentioned.