HomeMy WebLinkAboutENCLAVE AT REDWOOD - FDP220014 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
Enclave at Redwood
Native Habitat Buffer Zone Restoration and Annual
Monitoring Plan
July, 2021
Revised February, 2023
PO Box 272150
Fort Collins, CO 80527
i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................................2
3.0 Restoration Plan ..........................................................................................................................3
3.1 Goals and Objectives ..............................................................................................................3
3.2 Step-by -Step Approach...........................................................................................................4
4.0 Annual Monitoring Plan .............................................................................................................. 12
4.1 Schedule ............................................................................................................................. 12
4.2 Sampling Methodology ......................................................................................................... 12
4.3 Success Criteria ................................................................................................................... 13
5.0 Literature Cited and Data Sources .............................................................................................. 14
1.0 INTRODUCTION
DR Horton has proposed the Enclave at Redwood development project, which will consist of 232 single -
family units, a 1-acre park, a clubhouse with community amenities and several access roads which connect
to existing roads. The Site is located east of Redwood Stree t in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado and
consists of approximately 27.85-acre tract of vacant land which is bordered at the east by the Lake Canal
and surrounded by developed community homes in the remaining directions. The S ite is zoned Low -Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN).
An Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) was performed in 2018 by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon)
as required by Article 3, Section 3.4.1 of the City of Fort Collins (City) Land Use Code (LUC). The ECS
informed the City’s determination that the natural habitats on Site will require the implementation of a
Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) to mitigate potential impacts from development on ecological character
and quality . An additional evaluation of the NHBZ was performed in April 2021 by Cedar Creek Associates,
Inc. (Cedar Creek) to confirm that Site conditions are consistent with those described in the ECS a nd
determine the extent of noxious weed populations on the Site. Cedar Creek also executed a wetland
delineation of the drainage ditch that runs along the northern border of the Site in May 2021.
The Proposed Development Plan (PDP) presents the NHBZ delineation s on Site, which have been modified
from the standard 50’ stipulated boundaries in accordance with LUC guidelines. Approval of the proposed
NHBZ delineation is contingent upon the Applicant completing additional mitigation requirements prescribed
by the City’s Environmental Planning Departm ent.
This NHBZ Restoration and Annual Monitoring Plan (Plan) presents recommended restoration and
monitoring approaches which have been designed to ascertain measurable habitat improvement in the
NHBZ. The objective of this Plan is to describe the methods and procedures that will be used to implement
restoration, asses s establishment and progress of restoration, identify potential issues , and gather
information used to inform adaptive management activities. Restoration design for the proposed
stormwater drainage pond has been incorporated into this document the extent possible based on the
City’s Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater Detention Facilities (2009). Weed
management is discussed within the broader context of our proposed appro ach in this document and
detailed more specifically in the Weed Management Plan (Cedar Creek 2021).
2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Results of April and May 2021 field evaluations indicate the majority of the Site can be characterized as
non-native grassland, most of which is dominated by either a near monoculture of smooth brome (Bromus
inermis) or noxious and weedy annual species .
Noxious weeds observed on Site in April 2021 include cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Russian olive, leafy
spurge (Euphorbia esula), and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus ). Existing conditions and management
strategies for these species are described in the Weed Management Plan. Evidence of past disturbance
activities can be found throughout the Site, including drainage swales, unmaintained and revegetated
irrigation ditches, former roads/vehicle use, and several berms and/or stockpiles of soil. These formerly
disturbed areas have high concentrations of noxious weeds, though most s pecies are evident throughout
the Site. Approximately ~20 Russian Olive trees can be found on Site, most of which are mature and to
the north.
A 0.36-acre wetland is contained by the stormwater ditch that runs along the north border of the Site.
Results of the Site assessment and an evaluation of aerial imagery indicates that this extent of wetland
vegetation is likely highly variable from year to year, especially in the eastern half where wetland
classification was borderline. The western half exhibited h igh capacity for water retention compared to the
east, holding surface water after a heavy precipitation event for much longer than to the east. Vegetation
in the wetland is dominated by Timothygrass (Phleum pratense), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis),
and/or Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), interspersed with native species. The banks of the stormwater ditch
are regularly mowed, and it is possible that the wetlands themselves are mowed before/early in the growing
season based on what look to be tire tracks. In addition, there is existing disturbance near the westernmost
start of the drainage ditch, including deep tire ruts that cut over the wetland and up the opposite slope.
Riparian vegetation along Lake Canal, which was dry at the time of the April evalua tion, is dominated
primarily by either smooth brome or plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides ). The banks along Lake Canal
are in overall poor condition, varying between 3 -8 feet high and moderately to highly incised along the
majority of its length. There are several other drainage features just adjacent to the Site that contain
potential or defined wetlands, the stipulated buffers for which have been accounted for in the NHBZ.
3.0 RESTORATION PLAN
3.1 Goals and Objectives
In accordance with the City of Fort Collins guidelines (LUC 3.4.1) the NHBZ should be managed to:
1. Preserve or enhance the ecological character or function and wildlife use of the natural habitat or
feature and to minimize or adequately mitigate the foreseeab le impacts of development.
2. Preserve or enhance the existence of wildlife movement corridors between natural habitats and
features, both within and adjacent to the Site.
3. Enhance the natural ecological characteristics of the Site. If existing landscaping w ithin the NHBZ
is determined by the decision maker to be incompatible with the purposes of the buffer zone, then
the applicant shall undertake restoration and mitigation measures such as re -grading and/or the
replanting of native vegetation.
4. Provide appropriate human access to natural habitats and features and their associated NHBZ’S in
order to serve recreation purposes, provided that such access is compatible with the ecological
character or wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature.
The restoration approach and monitoring presented in this Plan has been developed to support the meeting
of NHBZ goals through evaluation of revegetation establishment and progression . Monitoring results can
be used to identify problem areas or potential issues early in the restoration process, inform adaptive
management activities (i.e., weed management), and assess progress towards the meeting of success
criteria indicative favorable NHBZ restoration and management.
The overall management goal of the NHBZ is preservation of existing conditions. However, when ground
disturbance is planned within the NHBZ, t he following restoration process should be implemented to
enhance the ecological character of the area . Additionally, guidelines for restoration of the propo sed
stormwater detention pond have been incorporated into the following process. However, the design of that
feature, which includes restoration, design, and engineering components, should be implemented in
accordance with the City’s standards and guidelin es (2009).
3.2 Step-by-Step Approach
The following is a recommended step-by -step process designed to reduce cost, improve the ecological
function , and enhance the ecological characteristics of the NHBZ while maintaining flexibility for site-specific
conditions.
Step 1. Creating Opportunity and Reducing Competition
The noxious and weedy species are often non-native, aggressive spreaders, and usually considered
undesirable ecologically and aesthetically. If left unmanaged, they can dominate an ecosystem by native
and less competitive species, which for those reasons are typically considered more desirable species.
Therefore, creating opportunities for a variety of native species to establish is vital. Some method of
vegetation control must be used on the undesirable aggressive species.
Typically, mechanical or chemical control is used. Mechanical control entails scraping or plowing to increase
bare ground exposure which will serve as a seedbed / planting medium. Chemical control entails the use
of herbicide to diminish dominance of undesirable and noxious species (see Weed Management Plan).
Smooth brome is rhizomatous spread by wind-driven cross-fertilization to produce seeds and can propagate
vegetatively through tillering and root fragments. Therefore, a chemical treatment is highly recommended
prior to initiating mechanical manipulation of soil.
Vegetation in the NHBZ is dominated by smooth brome, an aggressive, non -native, perennial grass,
interspersed with noxious and weedy forbs. While smooth brome is an undesirable species with regard to
biodiversity it does provide excellent soil stability and forage potential for wildlife. Therefore, a total
eradication of this species may not be necessary, but it should be treated when beneficial to reduce
competition and encourage the establishment of native vegetation.
Step 2. Soil Preparation
The soil surface should be optimized for seeding or plant ing. An agronomic assessment is recommended
to evaluate the chemical and physical properties of the soil throughout the Site, and a required design
standard in the location of the proposed stormwater detention pond. This information can be used to
determine whether soil amendments (i.e. compost) would benefit the establishing plant communities and
allow for optimization of the seed mix to soil conditions.
Planted areas in the stormwater detention pond will require topsoil with appropriate levels of organic matter
and should receive imported or stockpiled topsoil to a minimum depth of four inches. Sub-grade should be
loosened to a depth of 12 inches total (8” existing sub -grade and 4” of new topsoil) in the stormwater
detention pond location and 10 inches th roughout the remainder of the Site. Stones, clods, sticks, rubbish,
and other matter large enough to impede planting, seeding, or mowing should be collected and removed
from the Site. Removed material must be disposed legally.
Repeat cultivation in areas where equipment used for hauling and spreading topsoil has recompacted the
soil. Fine grade disturbed areas to a smooth, uniform surface plane. Prior to seeding the soil surface should
be loose, allowing for good soil/seed contact. Roll and rake, remove ri dges, and fill depressions to meet
surface grades based on grading plans.
Step 3. Seeding and Planting
In general, the species used should be native and suitable to the soil and moisture conditions of the Buffer.
Seed mixes should be designed to facilitat e growth of appropriate and sustainable species. If changes are
to be made to the proposed seed mix based on Site conditions, then approval must be provided by a city
Environmental Planner. The proposed seed mix was based on the City’s recommended species and is
presented in Table 1 below. This mix should be used in the upland restoration areas, including Tract (south
of Suniga Dr.). Other areas, such as the stormwater detention pond, the sa ndy soiled rain garden, and the
thinned soiled areas over underground stormtech chambers are discussed below with specialized seed
mixes / plant materials lists designed to optimize edaphic and moisture conditions.
After final contouring and amendment application/incorporation, seeding should occur as soon as possible
to avoid undesirable impacts from wind or precipitation. Seeding can be accomplished using broadcasting
and drilling techniques where ver applicable.
• For broadcast seeding: the seeding rate s hould be doubled, seed-to soil contact should be
increased immediately through manipulation which will also provide some protection from wind
or water erosion and granivores. Manipulation can be accomplished by either a light disc
harrowing perpendicular t o the flow of energy (wind and/or water) or hand raking around
sensitive areas (i.e. willow patches).
• For drill seeding: final drilling pass must occur on the contour, to create subtle ridges
perpendicular to the flow of energy. Drill seeding should not b e conducted in sensitive areas.
Appropriate native seeding equipment will be used, which does not include standard turf seeding equipment
or agriculture equipmen t. Drill seed the approved mix in two passes, each at a right angles to the other
and using half the seed in each pass . Seed should be drilled at the specified application rate and to a depth
of no greater than ½ inch . If areas are too wet or steep to drill seed, broadcast seed in opposite directions
at twice the application rate used for drill seeding. Restore fine grade after seeding, and cover seed to a
depth of ¼ of an inch by raking or dragging. Firm seeded areas with a roller weighing a maximum of 100
lbs. per foot of width.
The following native shrubs, sub-shrubs, and agavoids are recommended for planting in upland areas,
based on the NRCS Web Soil Survey results for the Site:
• Fourwing Saltbush (Atriplex canescens )
• Rubber Rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa var. nauseosa)
• Winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata )
• Prairie Sagewort (Artemisia frigida)
• Soapweed Yucca (Yucca glauca)
No.Common Name Scientific Nomenclature PLS / lb.
Recommd.
PLS lbs/ac
PLS /
ft 2
% of Seeds
in Mix
PLAINS COREPSIS COREOPSIS TINCTORIA 1,400,000 0.17 5.5 8.0%
PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER DALEA PURPUREA 210,000 0.81 3.9 5.7%
INDIAN BLANKETFLOWER GAILLARDIA ARISTATA 132,000 1.85 5.6 8.2%
ROCKY MOUNTAIN PENSTEMON PENSTEMON STRICTUS 592,000 0.35 4.8 6.9%
MEXICAN HAT RATIBIDA COLUMNIFERA 737,000 0.20 3.4 4.9%
Forb Subtotal 3.38 23.1 33.7%
INDIAN RICEGRASS ACHNATHERUM HYMENOIDES 141,000 1.13 3.7 5.3%
SIDEOATS GRAMA BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA 191,000 1.15 5.0 7.3%
BUFFALOGRASS BUCHLOE DACTYLOIDES 56,000 3.27 4.2 6.1%
BLUE GRAMA BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 825,000 0.25 4.7 6.9%
BOTTLEBRUSH SQUIRRELTAIL ELYMUS ELYMOIDES 192,000 0.95 4.2 6.1%
PRAIRIE JUNEGRASS KOELERIA MACRANTHA 2,315,400 0.08 4.3 6.2%
GREEN NEEDLEGRASS NASSELLA VIRIDULA 181,000 1.01 4.2 6.1%
SWITCHGRASS PANICUM VIRGATUM 389,000 0.71 6.3 9.2%
WESTERN WHEAT PASCOPYRUM SMITHII 110,000 1.61 4.1 5.9%
SAND DROPSEED SPOROBOLUS CRYPTANDRUS 5,298,000 0.04 4.9 7.1%
Grasses Subtotal 10.20 45.5 66.3%
Total for Upland Mix 13.58 68.7 100.0%
Acceptable Substitutes PLS / lb.
Recommd.
PLS lbs/ac
PLS /
ft 2
FRINGED SAGEWORT ARTEMISIA FRIGIDA 4,536,000 0.06 6.2
BLUE FLAX LINUM LEWISII 293,000 0.41 2.8
PRAIRIE ASTER MACHAERANTHERA TANACETIFOLIA 408,000 0.25 2.3
CANADA WILDRYE ELYMUS CANADENSIS 115,000 1.59 4.2
INLAND SALTGRASS DISTICHLIS STRICTA 520,000 0.35 4.2
MOUNTAIN MUHLY MUHLENBERGIA MONTANA 1,500,000 0.11 3.8
RequirementsGrassesForbsGrasses*Contractor is responsible for locating and purchasing all species listed in mix. If a species cant be located, contractor must
replace each missing species with the acceptable substitutions (listed above). Contractor is responsible for providing seed tags
to appropriate City staff. This mix is based on 70 seeds/ square foot and is only calculated for one acre. This mix is based on
the contractor using a drill seed application. Mix should be doubled if hand broadcasted. Contractor is responsible for
calculating the appropriate seed amounts to purchase. Please note that the pounds per acre are in PLS (Pure Live Seed) and
must be ordered that way. All materials finished shall be free of Colorado State noxious weeds as defined in Article III, Section
21-40 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins.
Specifications / Recommendations
Wildflowers/ ForbsTable 1. Suggested Seed Mix
Upland Mix
Stormwater Detention Pond
The planned topography for the detention pond is expected to support a variety of hydric conditions, which
will result in planned water dependent vegetative communities ranging from emergent / mesic meadow
with obligate and facultative wetland species, which will transition to riparian / mesoriparian / xeroriparian
habitats where facultative willows and shrubs can be planted. Plant materials, in the form of seeding and
planting will be used to restore the disturbed portions of the stormwater detention pond. Table 2 and Table
3 contain the seed mixes for emergent / mesic meadow and riparian / mesoriparian / xeroriparian areas,
respectiv ely.
Table 2 Proposed Emergent Seed Mix
Recommendations
Life-
form Common Name Scientific Nomenclature PLS / lb.*lbs/PLS
/acre PLS / ft2 Percent
of Mix
Blue vervain Verbana hastata 1,600,000 0.10 3.7 1%
Nuttall's sunflower Helianthus nuttallii 125,000 0.50 1.4 1%
Subtotal 0.60 5.1 2%
American Sloughgrass Beckmannia syzigachne 1,150,000 0.80 21.1 8%
Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata 197,000 4.00 18.1 7%
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 389,000 2.00 17.9 7%
Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii 110,000 5.00 12.6 5%
Fowl mannagrass Glyceria striata 2,000,000 3.00 137.7 53%
Hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus 300,000 1.50 10.3 4%
Baltic rush Juncus balticus 10,900,000 0.10 25.0 10%
Creeping spikerush Eleocharis palustris 620,000 1 14.2 5%
Subtotal 17.40 257.0 98%
Total 18.00 262.1
Wild-
flowers
Grasses/Grasslikes
Plantings and/or plugs of wetland species is recommended in the stormwater detention pond in the event
that inundation or saturation precludes seeding. If necessary, these plantings should be concentrated in
areas with high risk of erosion to minimize the risk of soil loss. Planting should also be concentrated where
favorable moisture zones are likely to exist. Planting small plugs in the fall is not desirable due to the loss
of plants to Canada Geese (Branta canadensis). Subsequent plantings are recommended after initial
establishment and when weeds are controlled (2 -5 growing seasons after initial construction ). These
plantings can be concentrated in areas needing additional erosion control protection and/or bare areas.
Planting or seeding of native shrubs should occur to provide structural diversity to the stormwater detention
pond. Riparian woody plant mate rials (trees and shrubs) are appropriate for planting within the riparian /
mesoriparian / xeroriparian because seeding is generally not appropriate for revegetating trees and shrubs.
If possible, woody plants that are pre -inoculated with mycorrhizal fungi, nitrogen -fixing bacteria, and/or
other beneficial microbes should be requested. The following types of riparian woody plant material are
commercially available for wetlands: B&B, plugs, bare root, and containers. Cuttings are the least
expensive way t o easily install riparian trees and shrubs and generally include cottonwoods and willows
such as the sandbar willow. Willows can be planted around the perimeter of wetland areas while riparian
trees and most other riparian shrubs are planted adjacent to t he wetland area but away from standing
water so that the plants roots are not in fully inundated water conditions. A least of suitable species is
presented on Table 4 but species to be used should be approved by a City Environmental Planner.
Table 3 Proposed Riparian Seed Mix
Recommendations
Life-
form Common Name Scientific Nomenclature
PLS /
lb.*
lbs/PLS
/acre PLS / ft2 Percent
of Mix
Smooth aster Aster laevis 750,000 0.10 1.7 2%
Louisiana sage Artemisia ludovisciana 4,500,000 0.10 10.3 11%
Showy goldeneye Heliomeris multiflora 1,055,000 0.10 2.4 3%
Blanket flower Gaillardia aristata 132,000 0.50 1.5 2%
Prairie coneflower Ratibida columnifera 1,200,000 0.10 2.8 3%
Subtotal 0.90 18.7 20%
Sideoats grama Bouteloua curtipendula 190,000 4.00 17.4 19%
Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis 825,000 0.75 14.2 15%
Green Needlegrass Nasella viridula 181,000 2.00 8.3 9%
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 389,000 1.50 13.4 14%
Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii 110,000 4.00 10.1 11%
Sand dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus 5,200,000 0.1 11.9 13%
Subtotal 12.35 75.4 80%
Total 13.25 94.1WildflowersGrasses
Sandy Rain Garden
To optimize revegetation performance on the rain garden, Table 5 presents a seed mix optimized for
mesic sandy conditions.
Table 4 Proposed Riparian Plantings
Common Name
Boxelder
Narrowleaf cottonwood
Plains cottonwood
Peachleaf willow
American plum
Chokecherry
Golden currant
Redosier dogwood
Sandbar willow
Skunkbush sumac
Snowberry
Wax currant
Wood’s rose
Scientific Name
Rhus triobata
Symphoricarpos occidentalis
Ribes cereum
Rosa woodsii
Ribes aureum
Cornus sericea
Salix exigua
Prunus virginiana
Riparian Shrubs
Prunus americana
Acer negundo
Populus angustifolia
Populus deltoides
Salix amygdaloides
Riparian Trees
Thinned Soiled Areas Above Underground Stormtech Chambers
The upland restoration seed mix presented on Table 1 is suitable for these areas. However, due to the
thinner soils above the chambers, it would be expected that the seed mix may produce a different plant
community assemblage than the remaining upland rest oration areas.
Step 4. Maintenance and Management
Maintenance and management activities should be implemented to ensure success of the ecological
restoration project. After seeding, the area shall be covered with crimped straw, jute mesh, or other
appropriate soil surface stabilization methods. Straw mulch should be certified weed-free hay or certified
weed-free straw with no seed heads . In the stormwater drainage area, natural fiber blankets are
recommended, as synthetic blankets can entangle reptiles an d amphibians in aquatic habitats. Routine
inspections for erosion should be performed during the time between seeding and vegetation
establishment to assure no excessive erosion features form on the project area.
Restoration goals can be achieved without t he use of supplemental water if seedling plans correspond to
local climatic patterns for native seeding, late fall or early spring. Supplemental irrigation can have
substantial effects on the trajectory of the establishing plant community that can negative ly affect S ite
diversity and self-sustainability (USFS 1984). For example, supplemental water can negate important S ite
Table 5 Proposed Rain Garden Seed Mix
Recommendations
Life-
form Common Name Scientific Nomenclature
PLS /
lb.*
lbs/PLS
/acre PLS / ft2 Percent
of Mix
Blanket flower Gaillardia aristata 220,000 0.50 2.5 4%
Rocky Mountain Penstemon strictus 490,000 0.10 1.1 2%
Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea 290,000 0.30 2.0 3%
Mexican hat Ratibida columnifera 1,200,000 0.10 2.8 4%
Western yarrow Achillea millefolium 2,770,000 0.02 1.3 2%
Subtotal 1.02 9.7 15%
Sand dropseed Sporobolus airoides 1,750,000 0.10 4.0 6%
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 389,000 1.50 13.4 21%
Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis 825,000 0.50 9.5 15%
Canada wildrye Elymus canadensis 114,000 2.00 5.2 8%
Sand bluestem Andropogon hallii 113,000 2.00 5.2 8%
Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii 110,000 4.00 10.1 16%
Yellow Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans 175,000 2.00 8.0 12%
Subtotal 12.10 55.4 85%
Total 13.12 65.1WildflowersGrasses
characteristics such as micro-topographic features, while also providing a competitive advantage to sod -
forming or more quickly growing species, leading to decreased structural diversity throughout the Site.
Species proposed in this restoration plan are native species which are adapted to local climatic conditions
and should be able to establish under natural conditions. By not applying su pplemental water, the
development of a more diverse, drought tolerant, and ultimately more resilient and sustainable
ecosystem will be allowed to establish at the Site.
Mowing
Mowing during revegetation establishment will help reduce competition from annu al weeds. Properly
timed mowing can suppress nuisance weeds while favoring desired plants. Timing is based primarily on
the growth stage of the plants to be mowed and secondarily on the growth stage of the desired plants.
Mowing is necessary to limit seed production and allow sunlight to reach desirable plants, which are often
shorter in stature than weedy nuisance species. However, mowing too close to the ground which may
result in greater soil desiccation because of the lack of shade. The timing of mowing will largely depend
on growing conditions and dominance of annual weeds and should be based on inspection by a qualified
revegetation specialist. A stubble height of at least four inches should be left to ensure that desirable
grasses and forbs are not negatively impacted.
Weed Management
The Weed Management Plan (Cedar Creek 2021) provided for the Site will be implemented to ensure that
weeds are properly managed before, during, and after seeding activities. Overall, the contractor shall
monitor seeded area for erosion control, germination, and reseeding as needed to establish cover.
4.0 ANNUAL MONITORING PLAN
The applicant will be responsible for ensuring execution of the monitoring and reporting protocol
described below.
4.1 Schedule
The NHBZ will be surveyed twice a year on the following schedule:
1. In the spring, a qualified ecologist will traverse the entirety of the Site to assess noxious weed
populations prior to implementation of management strategies. This effort will result in optimized
and targeted weed control efforts and provide sufficient time to manage weeds prior to seed
production.
2. At the peak of growing season, a qualified ecologist will implement the quantitative procedure
described in section 4.2 to measure ground cover within the NHBZ . The ecologist will also traverse
the entirety of the Site to identify potential problems or issues with restoration . During these
traverses, the observer will take note of: areas of poor seedling emergence, indicators of soil
fertility problems, noxious weeds or invasive plant infestation , expectations for noxious weed
seeding/flowering, excessive erosion, untreated cattail populations in the stormwater detention
pond, and any other similar revegetation / r estoration related issues (if observed).
Annual monitoring will continue for a total of three years following restoration of the NHBZ . A brief memo
containing survey findings and recommendations will be provided to the City of Fort Collins by September
30th of each year. This will give the City of Fort Collins and the applicant ample time to discuss and
implement adaptive management to address any underperforming areas prior to when on -the-ground
treatment implementation would be needed, if determined necessary.
4.2 Permanent Photo -points
Ten permanent photo-point (marked with GPS coordinates) on the Site will be established to visually catalog
vegetation progress; 4 along Lake Canal, 2 in the uplands of the Tract A parcel (south of Suniga Drive), 4
in the proposed stormwater retention area, and 2 in the Area for Conservation. Photo-points should be
determined in the field at a location representative of the NHBZ area, each location marked with GPS
coordinates, and each designated with a num ber which will remain consistent throughout the 3 -year
monitoring period. Each photo-point should be documented during the summer evaluation at the peak of
the growing season, for each of the annual monitoring efforts that will follow restoration. At each point,
four photos will be collected, one each in a cardinal compass direction (N -E-S-W), using a photo board that
is visible in each frame to indicate the photo -point number.
4.3 Sampling Methodology
Cover sampling will be conducted at a minimum of 15 sample points in the reclaimed areas of the NHBZ to
assess progress towards standards. A minimum of 5 sample points should be located in the wetland
designated Area to be Conserved, in order to assess the retention of existing character .
At each sample point, ground cover will be measured using 10-meter line point intercept transects. Sample
locations will be determined randomly prior to field evaluation. Upon reaching the sample point, the the
transect will be implemented and vegetative ground cover will be recorded by species. All species, including
noxious and invasive species, and their respective percent ground cover will be recorded. In addition,
percent cover of litter, rock, and bare ground exposure will be estimated and recorded; when summed with
vegetation estimates, these will produce 100% coverage of ground cover at each sample point.
4.4 Success Criteria
During the third year of annual monitoring, a determination of successful establishment in the NHBZ will
be made by City Environmental Planning Department based on a Site surveys and vegetative performance
compared to success criteria. The developer and/or landscape contra ctor is responsible for adequate
seedling coverage and growth at the time of final stabilization, as defined by state and local agencies.
Restored vegetation communities will be considered established when an effort to achieve the NHBZ goals
has been demon strated through mitigation and/or reclamation efforts and all of the following are met :
1. 70% total vegetative cover (excluding noxious weeds) is reached with no bare spots larger than
one square-foot;
2. 80% survival of planted woody species;
3. Noxious weeds do not exceed 10% total cover, and;
4. Effective erosion protection.
City Environmental Planning Department has the authority to deem revegetation established in lieu of
meeting success criteria, as well as withhold approval despite meeting success criteria, if they so choose.
If final stabilization is not achieved to the satisfaction of the agency, the developer and/or landscape
contractor shall be responsible for additional corrective measures to satisfy final vegetative requirements
for closeout.
5.0 LITERATURE CITED AND DATA SOURCES
City of Fort Collins. 2021. Land Use Code. March 5, 2021.
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. 2021. Enclave at Redwood Natural Habitat Buffer Zone Weed Management
Plan. May, 2021.
Terracon. 2018. Ecological Characterization Study for the Retreat at Fort Collins. March , 2018.
United States Forest Service (USFS). 1984. Brown, D.; Hallman, R.G. Reclaiming Disturbed Lands.