HomeMy WebLinkAbout1041 - FCLWD TRILBY WATER TANK FEEDER LINE PRE-APPLICATION - - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - ECS Reportrespec.com
TRILBY TANK 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
JUNE2024; REVISED AUGUST 2024
Project Number I1787.23001
Final ecological characterization study
i
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
Table 4-1. State Listed Species of Colorado ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF APPENDICES
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 characterization study
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 (), field bindweed (),
cheatgrass (), musk thistle (), Canada thistle (), aster (
sp.), prickly poppy (), and smooth brome () were observed. No trees
exist in the study area. The only shrub species observed was big sagebrush ().
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
Verbascus thapsus Convolvulus arvensis
Bromus tectorum Carduus nutans Cirsium arvense Aster
Argemone po/yanthemos Bromis inermis
Artemisia tridentata
Final ecological characterization 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 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
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 characterization study
Table 3-1. Federally Listed Species of Potential Occurrence in the Study Area
Species Federal
Status
Suitable Habitat Habitat within
Study Area?
Gray Wolf
()
Experimental
Population
Gray wolves are one of the most wide-ranging land animals. They
occupy a wide variety of habitats, from arctic tundra to forest,
prairie, and arid landscapes.
No
Preble’s Meadow
Jumping Mouse
(
)
Threatened
Well-developed plains riparian vegetation with adjacent, relatively
undisturbed grassland communities and a nearby water source.
These riparian areas include a relatively dense combination of
grasses, forbs, and shrubs.
No
Tricolored Bat
()
Proposed
Endangered
Mostly found in forested habitats.
Note: this species only needs to be considered if the project
includes wind turbine operations.
No
Eastern Black Rail
(
)
Threatened Marshes and wet meadows across North America, including riparian
marshes, coastal prairies, saltmarshes, and impounded wetlands. All
its habitats have stable shallow water, usually just 1.2 inches deep at
most.
No
Piping Plover
()*
Threatened Sandy lakeshore beaches, sandbars within riverbeds or even sandy
wetland pastures. An important aspect of this habitat is that of
sparse vegetation.
No
Whooping Crane
()
Endangered Potential migrant through Larimer County. Uses wetlands, lake
shore, and wet agricultural fields as stopover habitat. No
Greenback Cutthroat
Trout
(
)
Threatened Cold, clear, gravely headwater streams and mountain lakes which
provide an abundant food supply of insects. No
Pallid Sturgeon
(
)*
Endangered
Pallid sturgeons are adapted for living close to the bottom of large,
silty rivers with swift currents. The preferred habitat is comprised of
sand flats and gravel bars.
No
Monarch Butterfly
() Candidate Areas with blooming flowers, and especially milkweed (host plant). Yes
Ute Ladies’-tresses
()
Threatened
Occurs along riparian edges, gravel bars, old oxbows, high flow
channels, and moist to wet meadows along perennial streams. It
typically occurs in stable wetland and seepy areas associated with
old landscape features within historical floodplains of major rivers.
Also found in wetland and seepy areas near freshwater lakes or
springs.
No
Western Prairie
Fringed Orchid
(
)*
Threatened Moist tallgrass prairies and sedge meadows. No
*These species only 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
-
I
Species
Canis lupus
Zapus hudsonius
preb/ei
Perimyotic subflavus
Lateral/us jamaicensis
ssp.jamaicensis
Charadrius melodus
Grus americana
Oncorhynchus clarkia
stomias
Scaphirhynchus
a/bus
Danaus plexippus
Spiranthes diluvialis
Platanthera
praec/ara
Table 3-1. federally listed Species of Potential Occu rrence in the Study Area
Final ecological characterization study
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 State Status1 Potential to Occur or be Impacted by the Project Impact
Boreal Toad
SE
Prefers high altitude wet habitats (8,000-12,000 feet in elevation) such
as lakes, marshes, ponds, bogs, and quiet shallow water. No such
habitat is located in the study area.
No impact.
Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher (
s)
SE
Southwestern willow flycatchers require moist microclimatic and
vegetative conditions, and breed only in dense riparian vegetation near
surface water or saturated soil. No such habitat is present.
No impact.
Mexican Spotted Owl
ST Occurs in forested mountains and canyonlands. No such habitat is
present. No impact.
Burrowing Owl
ST
Found in dry, open areas with short grass and no trees. This species has
been known to use abandoned prairie dog holes as nesting habitat. The
study area has tall grass and prairie dog holes. However, during the field
investigations, no evidence of burrowing owls was observed in the study
area.
No impact.
Lesser Prairie-Chicken
ST No habitat present. No impact.
Whooping Crane SE Please refer to Table 3-1. No impact.
Piping Plover
(
ST No habitat present. No impact.
Least Tern (
SE No habitat present. No impact.
Species
(Bufo
boreas boreas)
Empidonax
trail/ii extimu
(Strix occidentalis
lucida)
cunicularia)
(Tympanuchus
pallidicinctus)
americana)
(Athene
(Grus
Charadrius melodus
circumcinctus)
Sterna
antillarum)
Table 4-1. State Listed Species of Co!oradlo
State Status 1 Potentia l to Occur or be Impacted by the Project Impact
Determ ination
Final ecological characterization study
Plains Sharp-Tailed
Grouse (SE This species’ range is limited to the grasslands of eastern Colorado. No impact.
Razorback Sucker SE No habitat present. Razorbacks are found in deep, clear to turbid waters
of large rivers and some reservoirs over mud, sand, or gravel. No impact.
Colorado Pikeminnow
ST No habitat present. This species lives in swift flowing muddy rivers with
quiet, warm backwaters. No impact.
Greenback Cutthroat
Trout (
ST
Greenbacks prefer cold, clear, gravely headwater streams and mountain
lakes which provide an abundant food supply of insects. No such
habitat is present.
No impact.
Northern Redbelly Dace
( SE
Prefers sluggish, spring-fed streams with a lot of vegetation and woody
debris. They can also be found in small, spring-fed lakes and bogs. No
such habitat is present.
No impact.
Rio Grande Sucker
(SE No habitat present. Rio Grande suckers inhabit streams with clean
gravel riffles, clear pools, large wood and aquatic vegetation. No impact.
Arkansas Darter
(ST
Not known to occur in Rule Creek. Only known to occur in the Upper
Arkansas, Fountain Creek, Horse Creek, Upper Arkansas at John Martin,
Big Sandy Creek, Rush Creek, Black Squirrel Creek, and Chico Creek
drainages.
No impact.
Brassy Minnow
(ST
Occupies stream channels (particularly pools), back waters, and beaver
ponds with abundant aquatic vegetation, especially submergent
vegetation. No such habitat is present.
No impact.
Common Shiner (
ST
Inhabits small, moderately clear streams having high gradients and a
predominance of gravel, rubble, and bedrock pools. No such habitat is
present.
No impact.
Bonytail ( SE No habitat present. Only known to occur in rivers. No impact.
Humpback Chub (
ST No habitat present. The humpback prefers deep, fast-moving, turbid
waters often associated with large boulders and steep cliffs. No impact.
Lake Chub (
SE
Most commonly found in cold-water lakes with clean gravel, but it can
also live in cold-water rivers and streams. Southernmost tip of range
extends into northern Colorado.
No impact.
Plains Minnow
( SE Occurs in the plains of eastern Colorado. No impact.
Southern Redbelly Dace
( SE
Prefers slow-moving pools and undercut banks in streams. They need
plenty of vegetation, especially algae. Also needs woody debris for
cover. No such habitat is present.
No impact.
Suckermouth Minnow
(SE This species typically inhabits gravel riffles in clear to turbid creeks and
rivers. No such habitat is present. No impact.
Lynx ( SE
The lynx is found in dense subalpine forest and willow-choked corridors
along mountain streams and avalanche chutes, the home of its favored
prey species, the snowshoe hare. No such habitat is present.
No impact.
Kit Fox SE Range in Colorado is limited to western edge of state in hot desert-y
areas. No impact.
Grizzly Bear (
SE Unlikely to occur in Colorado. No impact.
I
Tympanuchus
phasianellus jamesii)
(Xyrauchen texanus)
(Ptychocheffuslucius)
Oncorhynchus
clarki stomias)
Phoxinus eos)
Catostomus plebeius)
Etheostoma cragini)
Hybognathus
hankinsoni)
Luxilus
cornutus)
Gila elegans)
Gila
cypha)
Couesius
plumbeus)
Hybognathus placitus)
Phoxinus erythrogaster)
Phenacobius mirabilis)
Lynx canadensis)
~
(Vulpes macrotis)
=
Ursus
arctos)
Final ecological characterization study
6
Preble's Meadow
Jumping Mouse (ST No riparian corridor exists in the study area that would provide habitat. No impact.
Gray Wolf(SE Believed to be extirpated in Colorado. No impact.
Wolverine(SE This species is found in tundra, taiga, boreal, and alpine biomes. No impact.
River Otter(ST No habitat present. No impact.
Black-Footed Ferret
(SE Currently being re-introduced in certain locations around Colorado, but
none are near the study area. No impact.
1 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).
Zapus
hudsonius preblel)
Canis lupus)
Gu/ogulo)
Lontro
canadensis)
M11stela nigripes)
CPW habitat
Fo~tfranz Farm
(Cathy Fromme
Pr.,lrle NA)
WTrilbyRd
Final ecological characterization study
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 to jurisdictional 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 () and song sparrows () 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.
Sterne/la neglecta Melospiza melodia
Final ecological characterization study
8.0 PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT PLAN
Field investigations on the impact area in April 2024 found black-tailed prairie dogs ()
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.
Cynomys ludovicianus
Final ecological characterization 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 characterization study
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
/
fl)
0, .::
Q.
rn
C: .,
"C
~ :r:
II
J
tooth
hts
b
0:: .,,
Cl
-~
II
ii
C.
<fl
,: .,
Rimrock Open
Space
-0
-0
:c
t ,-
))
LEGEND
Proposed Impact Area
~ Study Area (500-foot
Buffer)
0 0.25 0.5 N
MILES W+E
Scale: 1" = 2,640' s
CD
C.
"T1
0
><
;o
C.
W Trilby Rd
Coyote Ridge
Natural Area
Prairie Ridge
Natural Area
Cathy Fromme
Prairie Natural
Area
I Former Franz
Farm (Cathy
if~ l Fromme Prairie
NA) J Hazaleus ,Jl ~
Natural Area )~0; __, ~ 't:I
ti:!
.l.
Cl ;:
::c
"(r L ~~l I~ !0 ~
La Eda \-<'7 ;
W Trilby Rd ____ W=T:rilby-=.Rd==1 ===_::i.;(D¢1
II 11 ' ~--dt ~
.,{~J 1~~!11
o' Jt-1C
;:::--\L :Jc-" .. .,
Cl
C: "' Ct:
✓.✓--'l J = 1f:t IL,,
_j' --,
~< If '\,r=-,.
Coyote Ridge
Natural Area
lollden D .
1/c,?
C/l
ch ::r
(I)
a.
II>
ch
Long View Farm
Open Space
-. . I . W71stSt=
City of Fort Collin s, Esn , TomTom , Gar
11
1n , SafeGraph , Ge0Technolog1e s, Inc,
METI /NASA, USGS, EPA,
1
PS, US Census Bureau , ~SDA, USF:S
FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP
TRILBY TANK AND WATERLINE PROJECT
ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
Colorado Springs, CO
5540 Tech Center Dr., Suite 100
Colo rado Spring s , CO 809 19
Phone : 71 9.22 7.00 72
www.respec.com
C:\Users\sa rah.itz\OneDrive -RESPEC, Inc\JDS Proj ect St uff\Trilby Tank \GI S\ArcGI S\FortCollin s_l 041 \FortCollin s_1041 _ECR.a prx -By Sara h.Itz 8/7/2024
LEGEND
D Proposed Impact Area
D Study Area (500-foot
Buffer)
NWI Wetland Type
Iii Freshwater Emergent
Wetland
-Riverine
0 250 500
FEET
Scale: 1" = 500'
FIGURE 2: NWI MAP
TRILBY TANK AND WATERLINE PROJECT
ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
C:\Users\sarah.itz\OneDrive -RESPEC, Inc\JDS Project Stuff\Trilby Tank\GIS\ArcGIS\FortCollins_1041 \FortCollins_1041_ECR.aprx -By Sarah.Itz
Colorado Springs, CO
5540 Tech Center Dr., Suite 100
Colorado Springs , CO 80919
Phone: 719.227.0072
www.respec.com
8/7/2024
Proposed Impact Area
~ Study Area (500-foot
Buffer)
FEET
Scale : 1" = 2,000'
FIGURE 3: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
TRILBY TANK AND WATERLINE PROJECT
ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
C:\Users\sarah .itz\OneDrive -RESPEC, Inc\JDS Project Stuff\Tri lby Tank\GIS\ArcGIS\FortCollins_1041 \FortColli ns_1041_ECR.aprx -By Sarah.Itz
Colorado Springs, CO
5540 Tech Center Dr., Su ite 100
Colo rado Springs , CO 80919
Ph one: 719.227.0072
8/7/2024
LEGEND
D Proposed Impact Area
D Study Area (500-foot
Buffer)
Natural Habitat &
Features
-Aq uatic
D Emerg ent Wetland
-Lost to Development
-Native Grassland
-Native Upland Foothills
Forest
0
-Native Upland Foothills
Shrub land
-Native Upland Plains
Forest
-Native Upland Plains
Shrub land
-Non-native Grassland
-Non-native Upland
Plains Forest
250 500
FEET
Scale: 1" = 500'
FIGURE 4: NATURAL HABITAT
& FEATURES
TRILBY TANK AND WATERLINE PROJECT
ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION REPORT
C:\Users\sarah.itz\OneDrive -RESPEC, Inc\JDS Project Stuff\Tri lby Tank\GIS\ArcGIS \FortCollins_1041 \FortCollins_1041_ECR.aprx -By Sarah.Itz
Colorado Springs, CO
5540 Tech Center Dr., Su ite 100
Colo rado Springs, CO 80919
Ph one: 719.227.0072
8/7/2024
Final ecological characterization study
APPENDIX B
PHOTO LOG
/
Trilby Road Project, Photos Taken on April 10 and May 22, 2024 Page 1
Cathy Fromme Natural Area:
Photo 1: Facing north into proposed impact area, and Taft Hill
Road on the left.
Photo 2: Facing east along Trilby Road from near intersection of
Trilby Road/Taft Hill Road.
Photo 3: Facing northeast into the study area from northeast of
the proposed impact area.
Photo 4: Facing southwest towards the intersection of Trilby
Road/Taft Hill Road from within the proposed impact area.
Photo 5: 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: Black-tailed prairie dog holes were observed in the
proposed impact area and were active by prairie dogs at the
time of the field investigations.
Cat hy Fromme Natura l Area:
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 near Trilby Road.
Photo 8: A black-tailed prairie dog, such as was
found in the proposed impact area.
C
Photo 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.
Photo 10: Facing west along Trilby Road from near the intersection
with Taft Hill Road. Groundcover in this area is primarily bindweed.
Photo 11: A stop sign has been run over and lies
within the Coyote Ridge Natural Area.
Photo 12: Facing southeast towards the Trilby Road/Taft Hill
Road intersection.
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 14: Facing northeast from inside the study area
in Coyote Ridge Natural Area.
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.
Final ecological characterization study
APPENDIX C
IPAC SPECIES LIST
/
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
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 typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species
surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the
USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to
each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI
Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that
section.
Location
Larimer County, Colorado
Local office
Colorado Ecological Services Field Office
\. (303) 236-4 773
Ii (303) 236-4005
MAILING ADDRESS
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/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.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 2/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Endangered species
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 any
potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often
required .
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request 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 any project 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 that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC
website and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed speciesl 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 Fisheriesi ).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown
on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for ~P-ecies under their jurisdiction .
1. Species listed under the Endangered SP-ecies Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also
shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status P-agg_ for
more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/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
NAME
Gray Wolf Canis lupus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
httP-s:/ / ecos. fws.gov / ecP-ISP-ecies/ 4488
Preble··s Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius pre bl ei
Wherever found
There is final critical hab itat fo r this species . Your location does
not overlap the critical hab rtat.
httP-s:/ / ecos. fws.gov /ecP-ls12ecies/ 4090
Tricolored Bat Perimy otis s u bfl avus
Wherever found
Th is species only n eeds to be considered if the following
condition app l ies:
• Th is species only needs to be considered if the project
includes w i nd turbine operat ions.
No critica l hab itat has been designated for this species .
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecR[species/10515
Birds
NAME
Eastern Black Rai l Lateral I us jama icensis ssp . jamaicens is
Wherev er fo und
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/104 77
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources
STATUS
EXPN
Threatened
Proposed Endangered
STATUS
Threatened
4/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus
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.
httP-s:/ / ecos. fws.gov I eqJ/SP-ecies/6039
Whooping Crane Grus americana
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does
not o.verlap the critical habitat.
htq;is:/ / ecos. fws.gov I eq~lsP-ecies/7 58
Fishes
NAME
Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorh ynchu s cl ar kii stomias
Wherever found
No critical hab itat has been designated for this species.
htq~s:/ / ecos. fws.gov / ecg/sP-ecies/277 5
Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhy ncnus lb us
Wherever fo und
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 .
No cr itical hab itat has been designated for this species ,
htq;is:/ / ecos . fws.gov I ec~P-ecies/71 62
Insects
NAME
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
httP-s:/ / ecos. fws.gov I eqJISP-ecies/97 43
Flowering Plants
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources
Threatened
Endangered
STAT US
Threatened
Endangered
STATUS
Candidate
5/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
NAME
IPaC: Explore Location resources
Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/2159
Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/1669
Critical habitats
STATUS
Threatened
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 if your project(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 1 and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 2.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
bald or golden eagles, or their habitats 3 , 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 httP-s://www.fws.gov/P-rogram/eagle-management
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
httP-s://www.fws.gov/librar:y_/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take
migratorY.-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
httP-s://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 6/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
measures. P-df
• Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC
httP-s://www.fws.gov/media/suP-P-lemental-information-migrato[Y.-birds-and-bald-and
golden-eagles-maY.-occur-P-roject-action
There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald
eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivi:t.Y-to Human ActivitY.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce 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 Hal iaee t us le ucoce p halus
Th is is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act orfor potential
susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of
development or activities.
httQs://ecos.fws.gov/eq;i/sP-ecies/1626
Golden Eagle Aqu ila chrysaet os
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.
httP-s:/ / ecos . fws,gov / ecP-ISP-:ecies / 1680
Probability of Presence Summary
BREEDI NG SEASO N
Breeds Oct 15 to Jul 31
Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31
The graphs be low 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 activ ities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read
11 SUP-P-lemental Information on Migrato[Y. Birds and Eagles'', specifically the 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.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/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) i.s the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0 .25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0 .25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a stii;ltisti"E al
conve r sion so that all possib'le values fall between 0 and 101 inclus ive. This is the
probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probabi l ity of presence score, simply hover your mouse cuFso r over the bar.
Breeding Season ( )
Ye l low bars denote a very l i beral estimate of the time-frame inside which the b i rd breeds
across it s enti r e range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in you r
project area.
Survey Effort (I)
Vertical black lines superimpo5ed on probability of presence bars i nd icate the number of
surveys perfo r med for that species i n the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps . The
n umber of surveys is• expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys .
To see. a bar's survey effort r ange, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar .
N'o o·ata (-)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are
based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
■ probability of presence breeding season I survey effort -no data
SPECIES
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
8/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
IPaC: Explore Location resources
++ +++
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified
location?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKNJ. The
AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried
and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project
intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in
that area, an eagle ~gle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the RaP-id Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my
specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCCJ.,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 Knowledgg_
Network (AKN) .. The AKN data is based on a growing coll'ection of survey, banding. and cjtjzen science
datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those bird 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 (~gle-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 RaP-id Avian Information Locator (RAIU Tool.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a perm rt to avoid violating
the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office If
you have questions.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 1 and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act 2 .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats 3 should follow appropriate regulations and
consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.
Specifically, please review the "SUP-P-lemental Information on Migrato[Y. Birds and Eagles".
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/localion/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 9/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
1. The Migrato[Y. 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 httP-s://www.fws.gov/P-rogram/eagle-management
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
httP-s://www.fws.gov/libra[Y./collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take
migratorY--birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds httP-s://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.P-df
• Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC
httP-s://www.fws .gov/media/suP-P-lemental-information-migrato[Y.-birds-and-bald-and
golden-eagles-maY.-occur-P-roject-action
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for bi rds Qn your list and how
this list is generated, see the FAQ below . This is not a list of every bird you may find in this
location, n or a guarantee that every b i rd on this list will be found in your project area . To see
exact loca t ions of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around
you r project ar ea, visit the E-bird data mar:ming too l (Tip: enter your locat ion, des i red date
range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, add it ional
maps and models detail i ng the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your
l ist are ava i lable. Lin ks to additjonal information about At lantic Coast birds, and other
i mportant information about your migratory bird list, i ncluding how to properly interpret and
u se your migratory bird repo rt, can be found below .
Fo r guidance on when to schedule activities or i mplement avoidance and minim izat ion
meas u res to reduce itnpacts to migratory bi rds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF
PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breed i hg in 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.
httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/1626
Broad-tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources
BR EEDING SEASON
Breeds Oct 15 to Jul 31
Breeds May 25 to Aug 21
10/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus
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 .
Ferr ug i nous Hawk Bute o r ega lis
Th is is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular
Bi r d Conservation Reg ions (BCRs) in the cont inental USA
httP-s:/ / ecos . fws.gov/ecP-lsgecies/6038
Go lden Eagle Aq u ila ch rysae to s
Th is is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilit ies in offshore areas from certain types of
development or act ivities .
httP-s:// ecos . fws.gov / eq;ilsP-ecies/ 1680
Grasshopper Sparrow Amm ocilram us savannar u m
pe r pa llidu s
Th is is a Bi r d of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular
Bi r d Conservation Reg ions (BCRs) in the continental USA
httP.s:/ / ecos.fws.gov / eq;ilsP-ecies/8329
Lesser Ye llow legs Tr inga fla vrp es
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
httP-s:/ / ecos. fws.gov I ecP-ISP-ecies/96 79
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
httP-s:/ / ecos. fws.gov I ecP-ISP-ecies/9408
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources
Breeds May 1 to Aug 10
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 15
Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 20
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30
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
httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/5511
Long-eared Owl asio otus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
httP-s:/ / ecos. fws.gov / ecP-ISP-ecies/3631
Northern Harrier Ci rc us hu dso nius
Th is is a Bi r d of Conservation Concern (BC() only in part icular
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
httgs ://ecos.fws.gov/ecg/sgecies/8350
Pectoral Sandpiper Cal id r is melano t os
Th is is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Pinyan Jay Gymnorhinus cyanoc ep ha lu s
Th is fs a Bi r d of Conservation Concern (BCC) t h roughout its
range in t he continental USA and Alaska.
htqJs :/ / ecos . fws.gov I ecg/sgecies/9420
Red-headed Woodpecker Melan er pes eryt hrocephalus
Th is is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the conti n ental USA and Alaska.
Sprague 's Pipit An t hus sp rag uei i
This is a Bi r d of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
htq;is:/ I ecos. fws .gov/ eq;ilsP-ecies/8964
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 1 5
Breeds €Isewhere
Breeds Feb 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.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 12/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
"SuP-JJlemental Information on MigratorY-Birds and Eagles", specifically the 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 probab i lity of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps :
1. The probab il ity of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week whe r e the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events
for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 su r vey even t s 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 probabi lity of
presence is cakulated . T his is the probability of pres,ence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probabi lity of presence
in week 20 for t he Spotted Towhee is 0.05 , and that the probability of presence at week
12 (0 .25) is t he maxim u m of any week of the year. The relative probab i lity of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3 . The· re lative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between O and 10, inclus ive . This is the
probab i lity of presence score.
To see a bar 's probability of presence score, s mply hove r your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow ba r s denote a very l i beral estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds
across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your
project area.
Survey Effort (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.fws.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.
■ 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
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Broad-tailed
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Chestnut
collared
Longspur
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
++++ ++++ ++++ +++ ++++ ++++ ++++
~~~m;ae:g!:i~e +t -1-t +++-I + I I I I 11 I I ++t -1-++++ +++-1--H--
(CON)
Clark's Greb~ 1-l 1-1-++++ -1-+ 11 I I
BCC Rangew1de
(CON)
Ferruginous I -1-I + I-+ I j I II I
Hawk
BCC -BCR
Golden Eagle
Non -BCC
Vulnerable
Grasshopper
Sparrow
BCC-BCR
Lesser
Yellowlegs
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
111 1
-H I i ++++ I -l I· I I-++ I I I I ~ I I I 1-1 -1 I I I 1-1 +++ I
Lewis's ++++ + 1 + ++++ ++ ++++ ++++ + ++ Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Long-billed
Curlew
BCC-BCR
~~~g~::::w~C:I ++++ ++++ t t tt ++ ++++ ++++ t tt
(CON)
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 14/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM
SPECIES
Northern
Harrier
BCC-BCR
Pectoral
Sandpiper
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
IPaC: Explore Location resources
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
+ ++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ + ++ + + +
OCT NOV DEC
++++ ++++
Pinyon Jay +++
BCC Rangewide + + ++ + + ++++ ++ + + ++
(CON)
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Sprague's Pipit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Whimbrel
BCC -BCR
l I I I l I
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all
birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds
are most likely to occur in the project area . When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the
locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.
To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probabi lity of
Presence Summary . Additional measures or Qerm its may be advisable depending on the type of activity
you are conductililg and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does I Pac use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern {BCC) and other
species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledgg_
Network (AKN).. The AKN data is based on a growing collection of surveY., banding, and citizen science
datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
cell{s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because
they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle <.E_ggle 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 RaQid Avian Information Locator (RAIL). Tool.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.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 specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by
the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and
citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes
available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret
them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e . breeding, wintering,
migrating or year-round}, you may query your location using the RA IL Tool and look at the range maps
provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird
on your migratory bird species 'list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If '1Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area .
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following dist,inct categories of concern:
1. "BC( Rangewide" birds ar•e Birds of Conserva ti on Co ncern (BC _} that are of concern throughout the1r
range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
,Islands);
2. "BCC -BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions {BCRs) in
the continental USA; and
3 . "Non-BCC -Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either
because of the Eagle Actrequirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in
offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or
longline ftshirig}.
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in
particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of
rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and
minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and
groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data
Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to
you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal
maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive MaP-,P-,ing 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.fws.gov/localion/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 16/19
5/23/24, 2:01 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
Caleb SP-iegel or Pam Loring .
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a P-ermit 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 w ithin the 1 G km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footpr i nt.
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 h igh survey effort is the key
component. If the su rvey effort i s hi gh, then the probabil ity of presence score can be v iewed as more
dependab le. In con t rast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and , therefore, a lack
of certa inty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is si mply a start ing point fo r identify ing
what birds of conce r n ha.ve the potential to be i n your project area, when they mig ht be t here, and if t hey
m ight be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for t o
con fi rm presenc e, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation me.asures to avoid or
m i ni m ize poten t ial i mpacts. from your project activit i es, should p r,esence be confirmed . To learn more
about conservation measu r es, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can imp lement to
avo id or m i n i mi ze i mpacts to m igratory birds " at the bottom of your m igratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any act ivity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must
undergo a 'Compatib i li ty Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the
i nd ividual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
There are no refuge lands at this location.
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/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. Coq;2s of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to
determine t h e actual extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
PEM1A
RIVERI NE
R4SBC
A full description fo r each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory:
website
NOTE: Th is initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether
wetlands occu r. Addit ionc:il information on the NWI data is provided below.
Data limitations
The Service's object ive of mapping wetlands and deepwater habi t ats -is to produce reconna issance level
informati on on the loca t io n, type and size of these resources . The maps are prepared from the analysis of
hi gh alt it u de imagery . Wet lands ar e identified based on vegetation , visible hydrology and geography . A
ma rgin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the -ground i nspect ion 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.fws.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.fws.gov/location/4ZIKULILW5EXVJXCWSLBR6VIOM/resources 19/19
Final ecological characterization study
APPENDIX D
FEMA FIRMETTE
/
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette FEMA
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
Legend
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
ZoneA, V.A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zonex
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone x
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
OTHER AREAS OF 1--Levee. See Notes. ZoneX
FLOOD HAZARD ,-f ~ Area with Flood Risk due to Levee zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
c::::::::J Effective LOM Rs
OTHER AREAS I Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
GENERAL 1-- -· Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES I I I I I I I Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
Water Surface Elevation
• - - -Coastal Transect
-ru -Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) = Limit of Study
=--Jurisdiction Boundary
----Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Digital Data Available N □
□ .
~
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped +
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
This map complies with 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.
Final ecological characterization study
APPENDIX E
SHPO DATA RESULTS
/
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION | 1200 BROADWAY | DENVER, CO 80203 | HISTORYCOLORADO.ORG
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.
I$
History Colorado
Trilby Tank 1041 Environmental Document SHPO Database Results
Survey
ID
Name Survey Procedure Lead Agency Institution Document Name Method Completion
Date
Acres Site
Count
If_count
LR.E.R8 A CLASS III INVENTORY OF THE
PROPOSED DIXON CREEK TO
HORSESHOE SUBSTATION
TRANSMISSION LINE IN LARIMER
COUNTY, COLORADO
1 LINEAR SEGMENT FERC Federal
Energy Regulatory
Commission
Centennial
Archaeology,
Inc.
A CLASS III INVENTORY OF THE
PROPOSED DIXON CREEK TO
HORSESHOE SUBSTATION
TRANSMISSION LINE IN LARIMER
COUNTY, COLORADO
Class III 07/13/2009>3/
2008
159.9 4 4
LR.LG.R1
3
AGRICULTURE IN THE FORT COLLINS
URBAN GROWTH AREA, 1862 1994
(CLG PROJECT 08 93 80042.7),
LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO
BLOCK CLG PROJECT
08 93 80042.7
Fort Collins
Landmark
Preservation
Commission
Advance Planning
Department
Cultural
Resource
Historians
AGRICULTURE IN THE FORT
COLLINS URBAN GROWTH AREA,
1862 1994 (CLG PROJECT 08 93
80042.7), LARIMER COUNTY,
COLORADO
Reconnaiss
ance Survey
1995>11/09/20
04
44800 34 0
Page 1 of 1
Survey Name Surv ey Proce d ure Lea d Agency Insti t utio n Docum ent Name M et ho d Comp leti o n Acres Site lf _co unt
ID Date Co unt
-
- - -
- --- -
-
Final ecological characterization study
APPENDIX F
PREPARER RESUME/QUALIFICATIONS
/
Sarah Itz has 16 years of experience working on a variety of water/wastewater, transportation, land
development, and environmental projects. Sarahs technical specialties include project management,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, wetland delineations, Section 404permitting,
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.
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
delineations 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
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) submission.
South Cascade Avenue Project,City of Colorado Springs,Colorado.Sarah was the environmental project
manager for aproposed 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.
Marksheffel Road Improvements,City of Colorado Springs and Colorado Springs Utilities,Colorado.
Sarah was the environmental project manager and permitting specialist in this project. The project
involved a proposed Marksheffel Road bridge over Sand Creek and related creek stabilization activities
within andalong Sand Creek. She performed wetland delineations along the creek, delineated the
OHWMs of the creek, completed a habitat assessment for federally listed species known to occur in the
vicinity, and took representative photographs and notes. Sarah coordinated with the USACE to determine
the appropriate permitting and prepared a PCN under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 and RGP 37.
West Water Pipeline Project 1041 Environmental Documentation,Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District,
Colorado Springs,Colorado.As an environmental specialist, Sarah completed a habitat assessment and
waters/wetlands delineation along the proposed West Water pipeline project area and completed the
environmental sections of the El Paso County 1041 environmental document. Field investigations also
involved taking representative photographs and GPS data of notable features within the project area.
Bar-X Waterline Project 1041 Environmental Documentation,Falcon Area Water Authority,Falcon and
Black Forest,Colorado.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 El Paso County 1041 environmental document. She also coordinated with
the State Historic Preservation Office regarding potential cultural resources along the project and with
/Section 404 Permitting
/T&E Habitat Assessments
/NEPA Compliance
/Project Management
/GIS Analysis
/Trimble GPS Data Collection
/BS in Biology, University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX (2003)
/Texas Department of Transportation Pre-
certifications: 2.3.1 Wetland Delineation,
2.4.1 Nationwide Permit, 2.6.2 Impact
Evaluation Assessments, 2.13.1 Hazardous
Materials Initial Site Assessment (2020)
/Wetland Training Institute 40-Hour Wetland
Delineation Course (2005)
/USACE404 Permit Application and
Compliance (2009)
/Wetland Training Institute Wetland Plant
Identification (2011)
/Wetland Training Institute Regional Field
Refresher Courses in Laramie WY and Santa
Fe NM (2017, 2018)
/University of Texas at Austin Technical
Writing Course (2013)
/RESPEC (2021Present)
/JDS Hydro Consultants, Inc. (20192021)
/EST, Inc. (2020Present)
/CP&Y, Inc. (20052019)
/Texas Department of Transportation (2005)
/Stormwater Research Group (2004)
/Environmental Careers Organization (2004)
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
EDUCATION
CERTIFICATIONS Ii TRAINING
WORK HISTORY
SARAH N. ITZ
BIOLOGIST
OVERVIEW
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
JURISDICTIONAL WATER DETERMINATIONS AND WETLAND DELINEATIONS
Cottonwood! Creek Drop Structures, City of Coloradlo Springs, Coloradlo.
South Cascade Avenue Project City of Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Marksheffel Roadl Improvements, City of Coloradlo Springs and Colorado Springs Utilities, Coloradlo.
West Water Pipeline Project 1041 Environmental Documentation, Woodlmen Hills Metropolitan District
Colorado Spri11gs, Colorado.
Bar-XWaterline Project 1041 Environmental Documentation, falcon Area Water Authority, Fa lcon alldl
Black Forest Colorado.
2
the Colorado Natural Heritage Program staff regarding potential protected areas and special status species within and near the
project.
Riverbend Crossing Proposed Development Environmental Studies, Avatar Riverbend, LP, Southern El Paso County, Colorado.
This project involved the proposed residential development of two parcels totaling 52 acres. As the projects 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, City of 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
waterlines. 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. Sarahs 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 to jurisdictional waters
determination and habitat assessment for listed species. A hydraulics and hydrology study was completed for downstream
flooding issues; Sarah helped identify environmental issues for the 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 Water System (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 C-28 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 12 to the
USACE, and recommended Phase II because of hazardous material issues in the project area.
GEC III, TRACK3 Wetland Delineation and PCN, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), 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 performed jurisdictional 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.
SARAH ITZ / / 2
mverbendl Crossing Proposed] Development IE11virn11mental Stllldies, Avatar Riverbe11d, LP, Southern El Paso County, Colorado.
BeL11lah Distribution System Improvements, BeL11lah Water Works District Beulah, Colorado.
fountain Creek Diversion Prnject City of Fountai11, Colorado.
l-laus111a11 Road Drai11age Project Phase I (LC9}, Bexar CoL11111ty, Texas.
State Highway (S.H.} 9 at Fish Creek Bridge Replacement and Approacl'nes Project Oklal'noma Department ofTranspor1:ation,
Hughes County, Oklahoma.
San Antonio River Outfall Pipeline Environmental Compliance Document a11d Phase I, San Antonio Water System (SAWS}, San
Antonio, Texas.
C-5 Culebra and C-28 Zarzamora Creek Pipeline Project Environmental Compliance Document andl Phase I, SAWS, San Antonio,
Texas.
GEC Ill, TRACK3 Wetla11d Delineation and PCN, Dallas Area Rapidl Transit (DARn. Dallas County, Texas.
3
Forest Grove Road Reconstruction and Bridge Replacement Project, Choctaw Nation and McCurtain County, OKLAHOMA. 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 wetland 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 the jurisdictional 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 wetland 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.
Babcock Road Improvements PCN, Bexar County, Texas. Sarah was an environmental specialist for the proposed improvements
to Babcock Road in northern San Antonio. She conducted fieldwork to obtain limits of jurisdictional 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 River Authority Environmental Assessment (EA), 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 preliminary field investigations, including wetland delineation, listed species habitat
assessment, and vegetation surveys. Lastly, 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.
Triview Northern Delivery System 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 Prebles meadow jumping 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 projects IPac list. Sarah coordinated with
USFWS and project engineers regarding conservation measures to avoid impacts to the Prebles meadow jumping mouse and its
critical habitat. Additionally, she conducted a wetland delineation along the proposed waterlines and prepared the
environmental sections of the 1041 application for submittal to El Paso County.
Circle A Minor Subdivision Project Environmental Studies, Private Landowner, Colorado Springs, Colorado. As the environmental
project manager, Sarah performed desktop research and field assessments as required by El Paso County for 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 any federally listed T&E species. No waters or wetlands were identified on-site. Sarah prepared a Wildlife Report to document
the propertys field results, maps, and photos.
Teller County Water Utilities Wastewater Treatment 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.
Trilby Tank 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
SARAH ITZ / / 3
forest Grove Road Reconstruction and Bridlge Replacement Project Cl'noctaw Nation alld McCurtain County, OKLAHOMA.
Drainage Ditcl'n Study andl Wetiandl Delineatio11, City of Del mo, Texas.
Blanco Road, Giadle Crossing to W. Oak Estates PCN, Bexar County, Texas.
Babcock Road Improvements PCN, Bexar County, Texas.
Trinity River Authority Environme11tal Assessment (EA), RJN Group, Dallas County, Texas.
Galveston Island State Park Individual Permit Texas Parks andl Wildlife Department. Galveston, Texas.
TliE SPECIES HABITAT ASSESSMENTS AND SURVEYS
Triview Northern Delivery System Waterlines and Pump Station, Coioradlo Springs, Coioradlo.
Circle A Minor Subdlivision Project Environmental Studies, Private landowner, Co!orndlo Springs, Coioradlo.
Teller County Water Utinties Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion EA. Divide, Colorado.
Triibylank Environme11ta! Compliance, Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Fort Collins, Colorado.
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 Habitat Assessments, Girl Scouts of the 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 conducted a desktop
review for Camp Rio Blanco, a habitat assessment for federally listed species, and WOTUS and wetland delineations within the
property. She aided in delineating a complex stream system and several jurisdictional 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 () Presence/Absence Survey, Bexar County, Bexar County, Texas. As a field
scientist for this 2.2-mile-long pipeline project, Sarah attended field visits every 2 weeks throughout the 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, City of 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&E Species Survey, Algodones Dunes, Imperial County, California. Sarah served as a temporary field biologist and surveyed for
three special status plant species, Peirsons milk-vetch (), Algodones Dunes sunflower
() and sand food () to obtain estimations of density 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 () 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 () 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.
Sarahs 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 males territory.
Treated Water Delivery System Environmental Services, City of Meridian, Bosque County, 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 report to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to document the projects due diligence.
Trinity Aquifer Water Supply Project Habitat Assessment and Wetland Delineation, BexarMet Water District, Bexar County,
Texas. Sarah worked as a biologist for this 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 after the 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, and the report was submitted to USFWS.
SARAH ITZ / / ~
Girl Scout Camps Habitat Assessments, Girl Scouts oUhe Northeast Crnsl>yton and Nemo, Texas.
Golden-clleekedl Warbler (Setophaga chrysopariai Prese11ce/Absence Su1Vey, Bexar County, Bexar County, Texas.
San Felipe Creek Master Plan, City of Del Rio, Texas.
T&E Species Su1Vey, Algodones Dunes, Imperial County, California.
Astralagus magdalenae var. peirsonii
Helianthus niveus Pholisma sonorae
Ba ld Eag le (Haliaeetus leucocephalu~ Survey, Brazoria County, Texas.
Golden-clleekedl Warbler and Black-cappedl Vireo ( Vireo atricapill;ii Su1Veys, Travis County, Texas.
Treated Water Delivery System Environmelltal Services, City of Meridian, Bosque County, Texas.
Trinity Aquifer Water Supply Project Habitat Assessment and Wetland Delineation, Bexa rMet Water District Bexar County,
Texas.
lake Georgetown Habitat Assessment a11d Golden-cheeked Warbler Presence/Absence Surveys, Cllisholm Trail Special Utility
District Williamson County, Texas.
5
Navasota Ladies-tresses Presence/Absence Surveys, Grimes County, Texas. Sarah conducted Navasota Ladies-tresses
( ) 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
Ladies- tresses (.
Babcock Road Habitat Assessment and Golden-cheeked Warbler Presence/Absence Surveys, Bexar County, 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 project design near the warbler occurrence. Construction
phasing was altered to avoid construction near the warbler territory during nesting season, and design plans were adjusted to
avoid impacts on the warbler habitat.
Environmental Documentation, City of Carrollton, 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 McInnish Park in
Carrollton, Dallas County, Texas. She completed and submitted an environmental report outlining results and recommendations
to the City of Carrollton.
Dilley Amine Facility 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.
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADoTPF) Drainage Manual Update, State of Alaska. 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 County Flood Control District, Bexar County, Texas. Bexar County
proposed this project to improve Grosenbacher Road by removing a segment of it from the 100-year floodplain. 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 County with conclusions and permitting requirements.
Hazardous Materials Initial Site Assessments (ISAs), Oklahoma Department of Transportation, 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 for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT).
Choctaw Road Widening, City of 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 assessment
and prepared and submitted a PCN to the Tulsa District of the USACE because of minor permanent impacts to a jurisdictional
wetland along the project.
John Kilpatrick Turnpike Improvements, Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Sarah was this projects
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 NEPA On-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.
Navasota Ladies'-tresses Presence/Absence Surveys, Grimes County, Texas.
Spiranthes parksii
Spiranthes cernua)
Babcock Road Habitat Assessment a11d Golden-cheeked Warbler Presence/Abse11ce Surveys, Bexar Cm.mlty, Texas.
!Environmental [)ocumentatio11, City of Carrollton, Carrollton, Texas.
Dill ey Amine Facmlty Discharge Line Environmental Document Enterprise Texas Pipeline l lC, Soutll Texas.
TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
Alaska Depar1tme11t ofTranspor1tation and Public facilities (ADoTPF) Drainage Manual Updlate, State of Alaska.
Grosernbacher Road Low Water Crossing Project Bexar Cou111ty Flood Contro l District Bexar County, Texas.
SARAH ITZ / / 15
1-lazardlous Materials Initial Site Assessments OSAs), Oklalloma Department ofTranspor1:ation, Various Counties, Oklahoma.
Clloctaw Roadl Widening, City of Oklalloma City, Okialloma City, Oklahoma.
John Kilpatrick Turnpike Improvements, Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
rnRB NIEPA On-Demandl Services, ODOT, Central Oklahoma.
6
I.H. 35 Section 3A EA, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) 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 projects 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 projects public hearing.
U.S. 57 Super Two CEs and Blue Line Report, TxDOT Laredo and San Antonio Districts, Maverick, Zavala, and Frio Counties,
Texas. As an environmental specialist for this project, Sarah prepared a blue line report 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, making jurisdictional determinations, determining area of impacts, identifying plant
species and T&E species, attending public meetings, and preparing the CE document.
I.H. 35 Frontage Road Improvements, Hays County and TxDOT Austin 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 Indirect
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 Mobility Authority, 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 Corridor Study, 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 Bike Trail 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 around 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, fieldwork, agency coordination,
and environmental document preparation and submittal.
DART Section 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 for this project and completed wetland delineations and listed species habitat assessments
along the proposed line. She prepared an environmental due diligence report documenting the field results and 404 permitting
requirements.
I.H. 35 Ramp Reversals, City of 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 environmental 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.
SARAH ITZ / / 6
i.H. 35 Section 3A EA. Texas Depar1tme11t ofTransportation (TxDon Waco District Waco, Texas.
U.S. 57 Super Two CEs and Blue Line Report TxDOT Laredo and San Antornio Districts, Maverick. Zavala, and frio Counties,
Texas.
i.H. 35 Frontage Road Improvements, Hays County arnd TxDOT Austin District Hays County, Texas.
Mopac Improvement Project EA. TxDOT and Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, Austin, Texas.
S.1-L 29 Corridor Study, Williamson County, Williamson County, Texas.
Unicorn Lake Boulevard Hike and Bike Trail CE, TxDOT, Dallas, Dentorn, Texas.
DART Section line 3, Phase I Sectiorn 404 Permitting, Dallas andl Tarrant Counties, Texas.
i.H. 35 Ramp Reversals, CityofRourn:I Rock. Texas.
S.1-l. 180 and Cattlebar011 Drive PCEs, TxDOT Fort Worth District Tarrant County, Texas.
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 replacement 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 (
),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.
Dilley Amine Facility 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 of Texas Technical Permitting Department. She also used GIS to create
maps/figures showing the proposed project and discharge location and flow direction.
Denton Landfill, City of 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 Document to document the results and 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.
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 EA for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Sarah completed fieldwork after an
agency kick-off meeting and prepared the EAs biological, hazardous materials, air quality, and noise sections.
SARAH ITZ 11 1
Keys Creek. The Wallace Grnup, Waco, Texas.
He11ze Road SA-47 Project Bexar County Floodl Co11trol District Sa11 Antonio, Texas.
fM 3028 at Rock Creek: Bridge Replacement TxDOT North Region, Parker County, Texas.
Dalea
reverchonii
South Hausma n Road (LC. 5), Bexar County Floodl Control District Bexar County, Texas.
DISCHARGE PERMITTING
Dill ey Amine Facmlty Discharge Permit Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC, South Texas.
LANDFILLS
Dento11 landfin, City of Denton, Texas.
Hu nter Ferre!! Secured] landfill facility Infrastructure improvements, City of lrvi11g, Texas.
GAMING FACILITIES
Adla West EA. The Chickasaw Natioll, Ada, Oklahoma.