You can copy from here when filling out the rest of the page.
The proposed bank would restore and manage approximately 505 acres of wetland, riparian, and buffer habitats along 1.25 miles of Park Creek and would provide wetland mitigation credits to offset wetland impacts in the Cache La Poudre and adjacent wetlands. The conceptual plan to restore, enhance, establish, preserve, and manage approximately 505 acres of wetland, riparian, and buffer habitat.
Location
Park Creek Station is located approximately 12 miles north of Fort Collins and 6 miles northwest of the Town of Wellington, Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1-1, Figure 2-1, and Figure 2-2). The bank will be located on an approximately 640-acre parcel (Figure 2-1) on Section 16 of Township 9 North, Range 64 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Latitude 40°44'50.71" North, Longitude -105°07'23.25" West (WGS84). The site is located on the Park Creek Hogbacks within the High Plains Level III ecoregion in the Cache la Poudre watershed (HUC 10190007).
Description of work
The project proposes active restoration methods such as planting and seeding, minor earth and streambank work, aggressive maintenance, and proper management including any natural resource-oriented grazing management plans and the installation of wildlife friendly fences to encourage native ungulate use will be needed to restore onsite wetland and riparian systems given the extent of wetland and riparian damage within the proposed Park Creek Station. In addition, The Bank Sponsor will use livestock exclusion and/or management coupled with passive and active restoration actions to facilitate the well-documented and expected shift to species and conditions more commonly found in reference standard wetlands and riparian areas.
PUBLIC NOTICE
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Omaha District
Application No:
Project:
Applicant:
Waterway:
Issue Date:
Expiration Date:
NWO-2017-01688-DEN
PCSB Prospectus
Burns & McDonnell Engineering
Park Creek
September 22, 2017
October 22, 2017
REPLY TO:
Denver Regulatory Office
9307 South Wadsworth Blvd
Littleton, CO 80128-6901
FAX (303) 979-0602
30 DAY NOTICE
PUBLIC NOTICE
FOR SECTION 404 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION BANK SUBMITTED TO
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The District Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, Nebraska is evaluating a proposal to
establish Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank, from Burns & McDonnell.
Summary
The proposed Bank would restore and manage approximately 505 acres of wetland, riparian, and
buffer habitats along 1.25 miles of Park Creek and would provide wetland mitigation credits to offset
wetland impacts in the Cache La Poudre and adjacent watersheds. The conceptual plan to restore, enhance,
establish, preserve, and manage approximately 505 acres of wetland, riparian, and buffer habitat.
Location
Park Creek Station is located approximately 12 miles north of Fort Collins and 6 miles northwest
of the Town of Wellington, Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1-1, Figure 2-1, and Figure 2-2). The bank
will be located on an approximately 640-acre parcel (Figure 2-1) on Section 16 of Township 9 North,
Range 64 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Latitude 40°44'50.71" North, Longitude -105°07'23.25" West
(WGS84). The site is located on the Park Creek Hogbacks within the High Plains Level III ecoregion in
the Cache la Poudre watershed (HUC 10190007).
Description of work
The project proposes to actively restoration methods such as planting and seeding, minor earth
and streambank work, aggressive maintenance, and proper management including any natural resourceoriented grazing management plans and the installation of wildlife friendly fences to encourage native
1
Project: PCSB Prospectus
Waterway: Park Creek
Corps File No: NWO-2017-01688-DEN
Applicant: Burns & McDonnell
ungulate use will be needed to restore onsite wetland and riparian systems given the extent of wetland and
riparian damage within the proposed Park Creek Station. In addition, The Bank Sponsor will use
livestock exclusion and/or management coupled with passive and active restoration actions to facilitate
the well-documented and expected shift to species and conditions more commonly found in reference
standard wetlands and riparian areas.
*********************
OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORIZATIONS: The Interagency Review Team responsible
for the review and approval of the proposed mitigation bank may include representatives from the Corps,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, or other agencies as appropriate.
HISTORIC PROPERTIES: The Corps will initiate consultation with the State Historic Preservation
Officer under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as appropriate.
ENDANGERED SPECIES: The proposed activity may affect Federally-listed endangered or threatened
species or their critical habitat. The Corps will initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as
appropriate.
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT: The Corps will initiate consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as appropriate.
The above determinations are based on information provided by the applicant and our preliminary review.
EVALUATION FACTORS: The Corps is soliciting comments from the public, Federal, State, and local
agencies and officials, Indian tribes, and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to assess impacts
on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and other public
interest factors. Comments are used in the evaluation of the proposed mitigation bank per 33 CFR Part 332.8
and in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Comments, both favorable and unfavorable, will be accepted, made a part of the record and will
receive full consideration in subsequent actions on this application. Any agency or individual having an
objection to the work should identify it as an objection with clear and specific reasons. All replies to the
public notice should be sent to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Denver Regulatory Office, 9307
South Wadsworth Blvd, Littleton, Colorado 80128-6901. For additional information please contact
Stephen Decker at (402) 995-2463 or Karen.L.Lawrence@usace.army.mil or visit the Denver Regulatory
Office web site at:
http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryProgram/Colorado/PublicNotices.aspx
The District Engineer will consider requests for holding a public hearing, for the purpose of
gathering additional information. Before the expiration date of this notice, anyone may request, in writing,
that a public hearing be held. Requests for a public hearing should state specifically the reasons for holding
a public hearing, and what additional information would be obtained. Should the District Engineer decide
that additional information is required and a public hearing should be held, interested parties will be notified
of the date, time and location.
Comments received after the close of business on the expiration date of this public notice will
not be considered.
2
Project: PCSB Prospectus
Waterway: Park Creek
Corps File No: NWO-2017-01688-DEN
Applicant: Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Submitted to
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Park Creek Station Wetland Mitigation Bank
Project No. 1261
9/8/2017
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Submitted to
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Park Creek Station Wetland Mitigation Bank
Larimer County, Colorado
Project No. 1261
9/8/2017
prepared by
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Centennial, Colorado
COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
Responsible Parties .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.1.1
Bank Sponsor Contact Information and Qualifications ........................ 1-3
1.1.2
Land Owner .......................................................................................... 1-3
1.1.3
Land Management ................................................................................ 1-3
1.1.4
Conservation Mechanisms .................................................................... 1-4
1.1.5
Endowment Holder ............................................................................... 1-4
1.2
Anticipated Schedule ........................................................................................... 1-5
1.3
Permits, Agreements, and Consultations ............................................................. 1-5
2.0
PROPERTY OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 2-1
2.1
Property Location................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2
Climate ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3
Current and Historic Land Uses ........................................................................... 2-4
2.4
Topography .......................................................................................................... 2-4
2.5
Ecoregion ............................................................................................................. 2-4
2.6
Geology ................................................................................................................ 2-4
2.7
Soils...................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.8
Floodplains ........................................................................................................... 2-7
2.9
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 2-7
2.10 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) ................................................... 2-7
2.11 Vegetation Communities ..................................................................................... 2-7
2.12 Invasive Species ................................................................................................. 2-10
2.13 Colorado Natural Heritage Program Data.......................................................... 2-10
2.14 Rare Plants ......................................................................................................... 2-11
2.15 Hydrology, Existing Wetland and Aquatic Resources ...................................... 2-12
2.15.1 Methods............................................................................................... 2-12
2.15.2 Delineated Wetlands ........................................................................... 2-12
3.0
BANK DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT .............................................................. 3-1
3.1
Current Site Stressors ........................................................................................... 3-1
3.2
Expected Restoration Outcomes .......................................................................... 3-3
3.3
Restoration Vision ............................................................................................... 3-5
3.4
Broad Restoration Goals ...................................................................................... 3-5
3.5
General Restoration Strategies and Actions ........................................................ 3-6
3.6
Bank Layout and Conceptual Design .................................................................. 3-7
3.6.1
Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation .......................................................... 3-7
3.6.2
Riparian Woodland Restoration .......................................................... 3-11
3.6.3
Riparian Woodland Enhancement ...................................................... 3-13
3.6.4
Riparian Woodland Establishment ..................................................... 3-14
3.6.5
Seasonal Wetland Establishment ........................................................ 3-15
TOC-1
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
Table of Contents
3.6.6
Wetland Rehabilitation ....................................................................... 3-19
3.6.7
Wetland Buffer.................................................................................... 3-21
3.6.8
Stream Buffer ...................................................................................... 3-21
3.6.9
Upland Buffer ..................................................................................... 3-22
Mitigation Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................... 3-25
3.7.1
Restoration Ecologist .......................................................................... 3-25
3.7.2
Installation Contractor ........................................................................ 3-25
3.7.3
Maintenance Contractor ...................................................................... 3-26
Installation and Maintenance ............................................................................. 3-26
3.8.1
Plants and Seed ................................................................................... 3-27
3.8.2
Irrigation ............................................................................................. 3-27
3.8.3
Erosion Control ................................................................................... 3-28
3.8.4
Invasive Species Control..................................................................... 3-28
Performance Standards and Monitoring Compliance ........................................ 3-29
3.9.1
Qualitative Monitoring........................................................................ 3-30
3.9.2
Quantitative Monitoring...................................................................... 3-30
3.9.3
Photo Documentation.......................................................................... 3-31
3.9.4
Annual Monitoring Reports ................................................................ 3-31
Long-term Management..................................................................................... 3-32
3.10.1 Long-term Management Goals ........................................................... 3-32
3.10.2 Management Framework .................................................................... 3-33
3.10.3 Potential Role of Grazing Management .............................................. 3-33
3.10.4 Long-term Management Outcomes .................................................... 3-34
4.0
OVERALL BANK BENEFITS ........................................................................... 4-1
4.1
Ecological Benefits .............................................................................................. 4-2
4.1.1
Current and Expected Post-Project FACWet Scores ............................ 4-2
4.1.2
Contributions to Conservation .............................................................. 4-4
4.2
Regulatory Benefits ............................................................................................. 4-6
4.3
Economic Benefits ............................................................................................... 4-6
5.0
BANK CREDITING AND CREDIT TRANSFERS.............................................. 5-1
6.0
PROPOSED SERVICE AREAS ........................................................................ 6-2
7.0
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 7-1
APPENDIX-
PHOTOGRAPHS
TOC-2
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 2-1:
Table 2-2:
Table 3-1:
Table 4-1:
Table 5-1:
Soils Units .............................................................................................................. 2-5
Colorado Rare Plants with Potential to Occur ..................................................... 2-11
Park Creek Station Broad Restoration Goals ......................................................... 3-5
FACWet Variable Scores for Current and Proposed Post-Project
Conditions .............................................................................................................. 4-3
Park Creek Station Wetland Mitigation Bank Proposed Credit Table with
Categorization and Conversion of Mitigation strategies ........................................ 5-1
TOC-3
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
Figure 1-1:
Figure 2-1:
Figure 2-2:
Figure 2-3:
Figure 2-4:
Figure 2-5:
Figure 3-1:
Figure 3-2:
Figure 6-1:
Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................... 1-2
USGS Topographic Map ........................................................................................ 2-2
Site Map ................................................................................................................. 2-3
NRCS Soils and Aerial Map .................................................................................. 2-6
Habitat Map ............................................................................................................ 2-8
Delineated Wetlands and Other Water Resources ............................................... 2-13
Baseline Conditions Map ....................................................................................... 3-9
Restoration Concept Map ..................................................................................... 3-10
Primary Service Area Map ..................................................................................... 6-3
TOC-4
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation
o
F
Term/Phrase/Name
Degrees Fahrenheit
BEI
Bank Enabling Instrument
BMP
Best Management Practice
Burns & McDonnell
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
CC&Rs
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions
CE
Conservation Easement
CNHP
Colorado Natural Heritage Program
Corps
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CPW
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
CWA
Clean Water Act
DOW
Division of Wildlife
ESA
Environmental Site Assessment
FACWet
Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FI
Functioning impaired
FIRM
Flood Insurance Rate Map
GPS
Global Positioning System
IRT
Interagency Review Team
State Land Board
Colorado State State Land Board
MBI
Mitigation Banking Instrument
NCA
Network of Conservation Areas
i
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
NPIC
North Poudre Irrigation Company
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
PCA
Potential Conservation Area
PEM
Palustrine Emergent
PSS
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
REC
Recognized Environmental Conditions
SGCN
Species of Greatest Conservation Need
SWAP
State Wildlife Action Plan
ii
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
1.0
INTRODUCTION
A conservation bank or wetland mitigation bank is a free-market enterprise that offers landowners
economic incentives to protect natural resources, and can save time and money for parties with mitigation
responsibilities by providing mitigation credits to offset certain permitted impacts in a specified
geographic service area. Conservation banks protect threatened or endangered species habitat or other
sensitive resources, while wetland mitigation banks conserve existing, restored, enhanced, or established
wetland habitats. Wetland mitigation banks may, in some instances, also provide credit for listed species.
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (Burns & McDonnell) performed an assessment of
Colorado State Land Board holdings to locate potential wetland mitigation banking opportunities. A
suitable property in Larimer County was identified. This Draft Prospectus (Prospectus) is submitted as a
first step in establishing the Park Creek Station Wetland Mitigation Bank (Park Creek Station, or Bank)
located in Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1-1). The proposed Bank would restore and manage
approximately 505 acres of wetland, riparian, and buffer habitats along1.25 miles of Park Creek and
would provide wetland mitigation credits to offset wetland impacts in the Cache La Poudre and adjacent
watersheds. The Bank is named after the former Overland Stage Company station formerly located on the
site (Photopoint 1 in the Appendix).
Chapter 1 provides a summary of the proposed project including roles and responsibilities. The baseline
information to describe the current condition and support the basic suitability of the selected property to
provide compensatory mitigation is described in Chapter 2. The conceptual plan to restore, enhance,
establish, preserve, and manage approximately 505 acres of wetland, riparian, and buffer habitat is
discussed in Chapter 3. Overall benefits of establishing Park Creek Station are presented in Chapter 4.
The proposed Credit Schedule is presented in Chapter 5. The Bank Service Area is described in Chapter
6. Burns & McDonnell intends to initiate preparation of the Bank Enabling Instrument (BEI) following
the review of this Prospectus by the Interagency Review Team (IRT).
1.1
Responsible Parties
The establishment, implementation, and management of Park Creek Station will require the participation
of various entities or requirements with defined roles and responsibilities. These include the Bank
Sponsor, Land Owner, Interim and Long-term Land Managers, Endowment Holder, and Conservation
Easement (CE) Holder or other land protection mechanism. These entities are discussed in further detail
below.
1-1
Burns & McDonnell
WY
Surface Land Management
NE
Bureau of Land Management
US Forest Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
UT
CO
Other Federal
KS
State Fish and Wildlife
State Parks and Recreation
OK
NM
County or City Land
Private Conservation
W County Road 70
WELD COUNTY
Proposed Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank Property
287
LARIMER COUNTY
Path: Z:\General\KCM\ESP\Marketing\Bus_Dev\MitBanking\Colorado\Park Creek Station\3 Tech Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\MitigationBankProspectus\PC_1-1Vicinity.mxd ajreither 9/1/2017
COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
State Trust Land
AZ
25
Poudre River
(SLB Public Access
Program)
14
1
Arapaho and
Roosevelt
National Forests
Laporte
NORTH
Lory
State
Park
Fort Collins
3
1.5
0
3
Scale in Miles
Proposed Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank Property
Access Road
County
Urban Area
Perennial Stream
Interstate
Highway
Major Road
Park Creek
Lake or Reservoir
Source: Esri; and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Figure 1-1
Vicinity Map
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Larimer County, Colorado
Issued: 9/1/2017
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
1.1.1
Bank Sponsor Contact Information and Qualifications
The Bank Sponsor for the proposed Bank is Burns & McDonnell, an engineering, architecture, and
environmental consulting firm based in Kansas City, Missouri, with offices in Centennial, Colorado. The
Bank Sponsor will be responsible for all activities and costs associated with the establishment and
operation of the Bank. Questions regarding this proposal and all subsequent questions, reviews, agency
communications, and submittals related to the proposed Park Creek Station should be directed to:
Mark Tucker
Environmental Services
National Mitigation Bank Design & Entitlement
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
9785 Maroon Circle, Suite 400, Centennial, CO 80112
562.458.7336
matucker@burnsmcd.com
Founded in 1898, Burns & McDonnell comprises more than 5,000 engineers, architects, construction
professionals, scientists, environmental consultants, and entrepreneurs with offices worldwide.
Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, we are proud to be 100 percent employee-owned, No. 16 on
FORTUNE's 2016 list of the 100 Best Companies to Work For, and a winner of numerous regional
workplace honors.
As a company doing business for more than 100 years, Burns & McDonnell provides the longevity,
stability, strong financial resources, and in-house expertise to see the Bank from entitlement through its
long-term management. We are a 100 percent employee-owned company offering a broad range of
services and skill sets companywide so we can deploy our internal resources to develop banking projects
that provide environmental and economic benefits and contribute to the restoration and conservation of
sensitive habitats. At Burns & McDonnell, employee-ownership provides an increased level of
responsibility, reward, and corresponding desire for excellence within our staff.
1.1.2
Land Owner
The Land Owner is the Colorado State Land Board (State Land Board). The State Land Board is the sole
owner of the Park Creek Station property, including all associated mineral rights, and water rights through
the North Poudre Irrigation Company.
1.1.3
Land Management
As Bank Sponsor, Burns & McDonnell will oversee bank establishment and the interim management
activities. As Land Owner, the State Land Board will oversee the long-term management activities.
1-3
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Bank Establishment commences when the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) is fully executed by all
parties and the site is secured by a Conservation Restriction. Upon Bank Establishment, the first credit
release will take place, and credit transfers may begin.
The Interim Management Period commences with Bank Establishment and ends upon the first
anniversary of the full funding of the Endowment Fund. Interim management activities are those
management, monitoring, adaptive management, reporting, and other activities required by the MBI.
During the Interim Management Period, the cost to conduct the monitoring and carry out the management
activities are the responsibility of the Bank Sponsor.
Once the Long-term Management and Maintenance Endowment Fund has been fully funded for 1 year,
the Bank will enter the Long-term Management Period, at which point the State Land Board will become
Land Manager.
1.1.4
Conservation Mechanisms
Several mechanisms may provide protections of conservation values on a property. These include Deed
Restrictions, CEs, and Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), among others. For the purposes
of Park Creek Station, Burns & McDonnell anticipates using either a Deed Restriction or a CE to protect
the property. Both mechanisms restrict the use of the property to only those conservation uses which are
consistent with the MBI.
1.1.5
Endowment Holder
The Long-term Endowment Fund will be held in a non-wasting, interest-bearing account and managed by
an entity approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Endowment Fund will be funded
incrementally with deposits as credit transfers occur. The Endowment Holder will be an entity proposed
by the Bank Sponsor and approved by the Corps to hold and administer the Endowment Fund in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the MBI.
The Endowment Holder will hold and manage the Endowment Fund. The purpose of the Endowment
Fund is to provide income to fund perpetual management, maintenance, monitoring, and other activities
within the Bank, consistent with the MBI. The term Endowment Fund refers to the Endowment Deposit
and all interest, dividends, other earnings, additions, and appreciation. The Endowment Principal is the
portion of the Endowment Fund to be maintained and managed in perpetuity to generate earnings and
appreciation in value for use in funding perpetual management, maintenance, monitoring, and other
activities as required by the MBI.
1-4
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
During the Interim Management Period, the cost to conduct the monitoring and carry out the management
activities will be the responsibility of the Bank Sponsor. Following completion of the Interim
Management Period, the annual cost of monitoring and management will be funded through the interest
generated by the Endowment Fund.
The Endowment Fund will remain as a non-wasting endowment to manage the Bank consistent with the
MBI. The Long-term Manager may use interest and earnings from the Endowment Fund to pay any costs
and expenses reasonably incurred through the monitoring, maintenance, or long-term management of the
Bank and consistent with the MBI, such as labor, contracts, equipment, materials, and signage.
1.2
Anticipated Schedule
Following review of this draft Prospectus, the Bank Sponsor anticipates moving forward on detailed
engineering and other site analysis, culminating with submission of the BEI in late summer/early fall
2018.
1.3
Permits, Agreements, and Consultations
The Bank Sponsor will obtain all requisite authorizations for the establishment and use of Park Creek
Station for offsite compensatory mitigation or restoration, as governed by Federal, State, and Local
statutes, regulations, policies, and guidelines.
1-5
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
2.0
PROPERTY OVERVIEW
The Bank Sponsor conducted desktop and onsite investigations to evaluate current conditions at Park
Creek Station and provide a baseline for bank design described in Chapter 3. Site reconnaissance and
initial planning efforts began in fall 2016 and continued through July 2017, resulting in preliminary
biological studies, wetland delineations, cultural resources surveys, and a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA). The studies will be updated and finalized for submission in the BEI.
This chapter provides an overview of key biological and physical attributes considered later in more detail
in the subsequent bank design chapter. The biological studies, cultural resources, and Phase I ESA were
conducted for the entire property while the wetland delineations were conducted for a subset of the
overall property where major potential wetlands occur. The biological resources review assessed general
wildlife and plant communities, and considered the potential for federally listed species protected under
the Endangered Species Act, and state-listed species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)
identified by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) or Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW).
Following is a summary of the findings of these preliminary investigations.
2.1
Property Location
Park Creek Station is located approximately 12 miles north of Fort Collins and 6 miles northwest of the
Town of Wellington, Larimer County, Colorado (Figure 1-1, Figure 2-1, and Figure 2-2). The bank will
be located on an approximately 640-acre parcel (Figure 2-1) on Section 16 of Township 9 North, Range
64 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Latitude 40°44'50.71" North, Longitude -105°07'23.25" West (WGS84).
The site is located on the Park Creek Hogbacks within the High Plains Level III ecoregion in the Cache la
Poudre watershed (HUC 10190007).
2.2
Climate
Based on the closest weather center (Buckhorn Mountain 1 East, approximately 7.5 miles south of the
property), the average annual precipitation is 21.5 inches with 15.15 inches in the growing season (AprilSeptember). The average high in January is 41 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and the low is 20 °F. In July, the
average high is 80 °F and the low is 56 °F (Western Regional Climate Center, 2017).
2-1
Burns & McDonnell
Path: Z:\General\KCM\ESP\Marketing\Bus_Dev\MitBanking\Colorado\Park Creek Station\3 Tech Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\MitigationBankProspectus\PC_2-1Topo.mxd ajreither 8/29/2017
COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
T9N R69W
5
4
3
8
9
10
17
16
15
20
21
22
29
28
27
Property Boundary
Township and Range
NORTH
Section
2,000
1,000
0
Source: Esri; USGS; and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Scale in Feet
2,000
Figure 2-1
USGS Topographic Map
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Larimer County, Colorado
Issued: 8/29/2017
N County Road 19
Path: Z:\General\KCM\ESP\Marketing\Bus_Dev\MitBanking\Colorado\Park Creek Station\3 Tech Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\MitigationBankProspectus\PC_2-2Site.mxd ajreither 8/29/2017
COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
W County Road 70
W County
Road 68
Property Boundary
NORTH
800
400
Source: Esri; and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
0
Scale in Feet
800
Figure 2-2
Site Map
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Larimer County, Colorado
Issued: 8/29/2017
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
2.3
Current and Historic Land Uses
The State Land Board acquired the property upon statehood in 1876. The property is zoned as open range,
has been historically grazed and otherwise modified by agricultural uses, and is currently leased out for
cattle rangeland. Three cattle shelters located in the north-central portion of the property are the only
existing structures on the property. The property is fenced and cross-fenced.
2.4
Topography
Park Creek, shown as an intermittent stream on the U.S. Geological Survey map, generally flows south
across the property in a small plain adjacent to the Park Creek Hogbacks (Figure 2-1). The elevation at
the site ranges from 5,300 to 5,400 feet above sea level. Elevation of Park Creek generally decreases from
north to south from approximately 5,400 to 5,300 feet above mean sea level. Two intermittent streams,
including Park Creek, traverse the center and eastern half of the property.
2.5
Ecoregion
Park Creek Station is located within the Front Range Fans Ecoregion near the border of the adjacent High
Plains Ecoregion. The physiography of the Front Range Fans Ecoregion is characterized by fans, irregular
plains, and scattered low hills and hogbacks. Intermittent and perennial streams in this ecoregion have
gravelly, silty, and sandy substrates. Streams tend to be cooler than in other High Plains regions and
contain many Front Range aquatic species.
2.6
Geology
According to the geologic map of Colorado (Tweto, 1979), the property is situated on organic-rich shale,
numerous bentonite beds, and sandstone of the Dakota Sandstone and Purgatoire Formation. Ten water
wells are mapped within 1 mile of the property. These water wells are listed for domestic, monitoring,
stock, or other uses.
2.7
Soils
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 17 different soil map units are located
within the property (Table 2-1; Figure 2-3).
2-4
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Table 2-1: Soils Units
Unit
Label
Name
Landscape Location
Drainage
Class
Frequency of
Flooding
5a
Aquepts, loamy
Depressions, draws, stream
terraces
Very poorly
drained
Rare
24
Connerton-Barnum
complex, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
Connerton: Floodplains, fans,
stream terraces; Barnum:
Terraces, fans, valleys
Well drained
(both)
Connerton:
None; Barnum:
Occasional
a
Connerton-Barnum
complex, 3 to 9 percent
slopes
Connerton: Floodplains, fans,
stream terraces; Barnum:
Terraces, fans, valleys
Well drained
(both)
Connerton:
None; Barnum:
Occasional
35
Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3
percent slopes
Flat interfluves on plains
Well drained
None
40
Garrett loam, 0 to 1
percent slopes
Terraces, fans
Well drained
None
44a
Haplustolls, hilly
Foothills, fans, ridges
Well drained
None
53a
Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent
slopes
Uplands, fans
Well drained
None
54a
Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent
slopes
Uplands, fans
Well drained
None
55
Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent
slopes
Uplands, fans
Well drained
None
56a
Kim-Thedalund loams, 3
to 15 percent slopes
Kim: Uplands, valley sides,
fans; Thedalund: Uplands
Well drained
(both)
None
59
Laporte-Rock outcrop
complex, 3 to 30 percent
slopes
Ridges, uplands
Well drained
None
63a
Longmont clay, 0 to 3
percent slopes
Floodplains, valleys
Poorly
drained
Occasional
66
Minnequa silt loam, 3 to
0 percent slopes
Uplands
Well drained
None
90
Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9
percent slopes
Uplands
Well drained
None
93
Rock outcrop
N/A
N/A
N/A
95
Satanta loam, 1 to 3
percent slopes
Terraces, uplands
Well drained
None
96
Satanta loam, 3 to 5
percent slopes
Terraces, uplands
Well drained
None
25
Source: USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (2017)
(a) = hydric soil
2-5
Burns & McDonnell
Soil Unit Symbol - Soil Name
5 - Aquepts, loamy**
24 - Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes
25 - Connerton-Barnum complex, 3 to 9 percent slopes*
34 - Fort Collins loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
35 - Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
40 - Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes
44 - Haplustolls, hilly*
46 - Harlan fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes*
53 - Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes*
54 - Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes*
55 - Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes
56 - Kim-Thedalund loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes*
59 - Laporte-Rock outcrop complex, 3 to 30 percent slopes
60 - Larim gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 40 percent slopes
63 - Longmont clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes*
66 - Minnequa silt loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes*
74 - Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
90 - Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes
93 - Rock outcrop
95 - Satanta loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
96 - Satanta loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
102 - Stoneham loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
103 - Stoneham loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes
93
25
46
96
74
96
W County Road 70
5
25
35
5
24
96
40
35
95
40
63
96
40
66
59
56
34
59
96
66
53
55
93
24
44
54
N County Road 19
Path: Z:\General\KCM\ESP\Marketing\Bus_Dev\MitBanking\Colorado\Park Creek Station\3 Tech Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\MitigationBankProspectus\PC_2-3Soils.mxd ajreither 8/29/2017
COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Double asterisk (**) indicates hydric soil. Single asterisk (*) indicates hydric inclusion soils.
54
53
54
56
90
95
34
102
93
54
66
96
59
63
95
40
W County
Road 68
66
Property Boundary
NORTH
Hydric Soil
Hydric Inclusion Soil
Soil Map Unit
Local Street
800
400
0
800
Scale in Feet
Source: Esri; NRCS Soils Data for Larimer County, Colorado; and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Figure 2-3
NRCS Soils and Aerial Map
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Larimer County, Colorado
Issued: 8/29/2017
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Seven of the 17 soil map units are considered hydric soils. Most of these soils are well drained but
Aquepts and Longmont clay are considered very poorly drained and poorly drained, respectively.
Flooding occurs occasionally or rarely on Aquepts, Connerton-Barnum complexes, and Longmont clay.
2.8
Floodplains
The 2006 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) indicates
that no special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood event are
present within the property.
2.9
Cultural Resources
A review of historic cultural resources information indicated no recorded historic structures or
archaeological sites listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are
present within the Project Area. The review of cultural resources concludes that significant cultural
resources are not expected to be negatively affected by restoration activities.
2.10
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
A Phase I ESA was performed to evaluate previous ownership of the property and to investigate that it
was consistent with good commercial and customary practice. Since 1876, the property has been used for
a former school house, a former stage coach station, an electrical transmission line right-of-way, grazing,
and agricultural purposes. Evidence of rangeland and cropland use since 1876 was also observed. No
Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC)s were identified on the site.
2.11
Vegetation Communities
Several vegetation communities are present on the site, including riparian areas, wet meadows, slope
wetlands, upland shrubland, mixed grassland, hayfields, prairie dog town, and Niobrara barrens
(Figure 2-4). Riparian areas are largely located along Park Creek, an intermittent stream that flows south
through the property. The riparian area along Park Creek is dominated by herbaceous vegetation, but
includes some scattered and small patches of shrubs and trees. Herbaceous vegetation in the riparian areas
includes black bent, bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), curly dock (Rumex crispus), reed canary grass
(Phalaris arundinacea), and softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani).
Shrub and tree species located in the riparian areas include common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus),
narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), ash-leaf maple (Acer negundo), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia),
and eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides).
2-7
Burns & McDonnell
N County Road 19
Path: Z:\General\KCM\ESP\Marketing\Bus_Dev\MitBanking\Colorado\Park Creek Station\3 Tech Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\MitigationBankProspectus\PC_2-4VegHabitat.mxd ajreither 8/29/2017
COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
W County Road 70
W County
Road 68
NORTH
800
400
0
800
Scale in Feet
Property Boundary (629 ac)
Unnamed Tributary
Park Creek (1.0 ac)
Riparian Emergent Wetland (1.2 ac)
Riparian Scrub-Shrub Wetland (0.3 ac)
Riparian Woodland (6.2 ac)
Wet Meadow (12.2 ac)
Slope Wetland Complex (46.1 ac)
Alkali Playa Complex (21.9 ac)
Niobrara Barrens (22.7 ac)
Mixed Grasslands (92.3 ac)
Upland Shrubland (264.2 ac)
Prairie Dog Town (122.8 ac)
Hayfield/Grassland (36.7 ac)
Canal (2.0 ac)
Source: Esri; USGS-National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Figure 2-4
Habitat Map
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Larimer County, Colorado
Issued: 8/29/2017
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Wet meadows and slope wetlands are located on Park Creek stream terraces and higher slopes that drain
to Park Creek. Stream terraces on both sides of Park Creek contain wet meadows where water slowly
moves horizontally across the landscape. Groundwater discharge is the dominant source of water in these
wetlands. Vegetation in the wet meadows and slope wetlands is similar and is dominated by Nebraska
sedge, Baltic rush, common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) and
common spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris).
The dominant vegetation community in the Project area is upland shrubland. This vegetation community
is dominated by shrubs but also contains many grasses and herbs. Shrubs present in the upland shrubland
include fourwing saltbrush (Atriplex canescens), rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), wood's rose (Rosa
woodsia), and common snowberry. Herbaceous vegetation and grasses in this area include pigweed
(Amaranthus sp.), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), yellow sweet
clover (Melilotus officinalis), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), smooth brome (Bromus inermis),
cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum
smithii).
Mixed grasslands are present in multiple locations on the property. As typically has occurred in eastern
Colorado, mixed grasslands on the site have been regularly disturbed by grazing and haying. As a result,
they are generally degraded and lack the diversity and extent of plant species that would have historically
been present. Common vegetation in the mixed grasslands includes pigweed, Canada thistle, horseweed,
American licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota), Canada goldenrod, mullein, (Verbascum thapsus), smooth
brome, cheatgrass, western wheatgrass, and intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium).
A large hayfield is located on the eastern side of Park Creek. This field is vegetated with a mix of native
and non-native forb and grass species. Representative for species includes pigweed, knapweed
(Centaurea sp.), Canada thistle, houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), American licorice, curly dock,
and mullein. Representative grass species include smooth brome, cheatgrass, saltgrass, foxtail barley,
Great Basin lyme grass (Leymus cinereus), western wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria
spicata), and intermediate wheatgrass.
Prairie dog town areas are present in multiple locations on the eastern and western sides of Park Creek.
Prairie dogs typically inhabit areas of short and medium grass prairies. In these areas, they clip the
vegetation to maintain an open view of the surroundings. Vegetation in the prairie dog town areas is
essentially the same as that found in the mixed grasslands and hayfields.
2-9
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Niobrara barrens are present in the southwest corner of the Property and appear light grey on aerial
photography (Figure 2-4). In Colorado, barrens occupy less than 1 percent of Colorado acreage, but
support more than 20 percent of the rarest plant species (CPW, 2015b). Drought and wind erosion are the
most common natural dynamics affecting this habitat type. The light grey color is due to the outcrop
consisting of mostly shale, which weathers to light buff or whitish color resembling chalk (Tweto, 1979).
Shale creates soils rich in selenium, which may support unusual plants such as Bell's twinpod (Physaria
belli). Vegetation observed in the Niobrara barrens habitat type on the Project site include buckwheat
(Eriogonum sp.), yucca (Yucca glauca), blazing star (Mentzelia sp.), curley cup gumweed (Grindelia
squarrosa), prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), snakeweed (Guitierrezia sarothrae), three-leaf sumac (Rhus
trilobata), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), Penstemon (Penstemon sp.), and hairy false
goldenaster (Heterotheca villosa).
2.12
Invasive Species
The Colorado Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed List (effective date 3/31/17) was used to classify
invasive species. There are no List A species recorded on the property. The four List B species on the
property are Russian olive, Canada thistle, and houndstongue. The List C species include mullein
(Verbascum thapsus), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and cheatgrass (called downy brome on the
noxious weed list). Other invasive species documented on the property that can be problematic include
yellow sweet clover, smooth brome, Kochia (Kochia scoparia), knotweed (Polygonum persicaria), and
intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium).
2.13
Colorado Natural Heritage Program Data
CNHP data received on November 20, 2016, included the locations and status of rare and/or imperiled
species and natural communities known from, or likely to occur, within a half-mile radius of Section 16
of Township 9 North, Range 69 West (Project Boundary). Two species (Townsend's big-eared bat and
Bell's twinpod), as well as two natural communities, mixed foothill shrublands (Cercocarpus montanus /
Hesperostipa comata) and foothills shrubland (Cercocarpus montanus / Hesperostipa neomexicana),
were included in this list. The only species reported for the property is Bell's twinpod, which was last
observed on May 4, 2004. Focused surveys were not conducted as part of this preliminary analysis.
A level 4 potential conservation area (PCA) report was also included in the CNHP data. A PCA is an
ecological conservation and planning tool used to highlight unique elements of biodiversity. Two PCAs
were identified, one of very high biodiversity significance (B2) and one of high biodiversity significance
(B3). The B2 PCA is mapped in the southwestern corner of the property near the Niobrara barrens. The
associated elements of biodiversity for the B2 PCA include several habitat types, including mountain
2-10
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
mahogany/Griffith's wheatgrass shrubland, mountain mahogany- skunkbush/big bluestem shrubland,
mixed foothill shrublands, and mixed mountain shrublands. The B3 site is located west and adjacent to
the property. The associated elements of biodiversity for this site include the Bell's twinpod and foothills
shrubland.
2.14
Rare Plants
Colorado has no state statute protecting rare plants, and therefore no list of state threatened or endangered
plant species. Lists of Tier 1 (G1 critically imperiled including all federally listed species) and Tier 2
(imperiled species that are not federally listed) Plant Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) are
included in Appendix A of the State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). Tier 1 and Tier 2 plants occur in
alpine, barrens, cliffs and canyons, grasslands, forests, pinyon-juniper woodlands, shrublands, and
wetlands. In addition to the SWAP, the CNHP Colorado Rare Plant Guide was also reviewed, which
indicated that two rare plant species could potentially be found within the property. Table 2-2 summarizes
the Colorado rare plants designated by CNHP that have the potential to occur within the property, as well
as their corresponding conservation tier designated by the SWAP. Focused surveys were not conducted as
part of this preliminary analysis.
Table 2-2: Colorado Rare Plants with Potential to Occur
Species
Statusa
Showy prairie
gentian
G5
(Eustoma
grandiflorum)
Bell's
twinpod
(Physaria
bellii)
Description of Preferred Habitat
Along streams; in wet meadows,
pastures, and fields; usually near old
stream meanders or at the margins of
lakes or ponds. Often in alkaline
soils. Elevation 3,500 to 6,000 feet
Front Range foothills often in shale
and limestone soils of the
Fountain/Ingleside, Lykins, Niobrara,
G2G3/S2S3 and Pierre formations. Associated
with grassland and shrubland habitats,
in rock areas and road cuts. Elevation
5,089 to 6,552 feet
Determination of
Potential Habitat
Present
SWAP
Tier
Yes. Suitable habitat
along Park Creek, wet
meadows, hayfields,
mixed grasslands, and
intermittent drainages.
NA
Yes. Suitable habitat in
the Niobrara formations
in the southwest corner
of the property. CNHP
data reported
observations from 2004.
Tier 2
(a) G2: Globally Imperiled - At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or
fewer), steep declines, or other factors; G3: Globally Vulnerable - At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted
range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors; G5:
Demonstrably secure; S2: State Imperiled - Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to
declines or other factors; S3: State Vulnerable - Common; widespread and abundant.
2-11
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
2.15
Hydrology, Existing Wetland and Aquatic Resources
Burns & McDonnell conducted wetland and water body delineations within the Park Creek Station Site
on two different occasions to determine the location and extent of potentially jurisdictional wetland
communities based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. A
total of 31.66 acres of waters of the U.S. were delineated within the entire 640-acre property. A
geomorphologist visited the site in July 2017, to evaluate the condition of Park Creek. A summary of this
visual assessment is also provided below. Delineated wetlands are shown in Figure 2-5.
2.15.1
Methods
The wetland delineation was conducted in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region Version 2.0 (Regional Supplement). Sample plots
were established at multiple locations, and Wetland Determination Data Forms from the Regional
Supplement were completed to characterize the study area. Vegetation, soil characteristics, and
hydrologic indicators were recorded at each of these sample plots. Locations of sample plots and other
identified features were surveyed using a sub-meter accurate global positioning system (GPS) unit.
Natural color photographs were taken onsite to record conditions during the wetland delineations.
2.15.2
Delineated Wetlands
A total of 0.98 acre of the Park Creek stream, 0.28 acre of palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetland, and
30.40 acres of palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland were delineated within the proposed Park Creek
Station (Figure 2-5). A description of the delineated wetlands and water bodies is provided below.
2.15.2.1
Park Creek
Park Creek is an intermittent stream that traverses the site from north to south. The channel consists of a
meandering low flow channel within a larger, incised "floodplain." The substrate consists primarily of
sand and silt. Slopes are steep in some areas and gradual in others. The property is in the Front Range
Fans ecoregion, which borders the northern Front Range of the Southern Rockies in Colorado. Streams
like Park Creek tend to be cooler than in other High Plains regions and can contain many Front Range
aquatic species.
A hydraulic water control diversion structure is located along Park Creek in the central portion of the Park
Creek Station. The structure can be used to divert water from Park Creek into the North Poudre Supply
Canal. Scheduled and natural flows continue downstream.
2-12
Burns & McDonnell
Not Surveyed
U1_01
Up
r#
pe
Mu
nro
N County Road 19
eG
rav
ity
D
itch
1
Path: Z:\General\KCM\ESP\Marketing\Bus_Dev\MitBanking\Colorado\Park Creek Station\3 Tech Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\MitigationBankProspectus\PC_2-5Wetlands.mxd ajreither 8/29/2017
COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
k
ree
rkC
Pa
W County Road 70
W County
Road 68
NORTH
Pa
rk
800
Cr 400
ee k
0
800
Scale in Feet
Property Boundary
Slope Wetland Complex (38.5 ac)
Park Creek (1.0 ac)
Alkali Playa Complex (12.8 ac)
Current Drainage Pattern
Delineated Wetland (30.3 ac)
NHD Flowline
Diversion Structure
Local Street
Source: Esri; USGS-National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Figure 2-5
Delineated Wetlands and
Other Water Resources
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Larimer County, Colorado
Issued: 8/29/2017
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
Park Creek flows south and is a tributary of Cache la Poudre River. Flows have been observed in all
seasons, and the creek maintains flow outside of transfer season. The Creek reaches seem to have
hydrology that mimics the expected general seasonal patterns. The Water Source variable in FACWet
appears to score as Functioning. A detailed accounting of the hydraulics and hydrology will be provided
in the BEI.
The Park Creek channel appears longitudinally stable, and the channel slope is relatively consistent
except in two locations where minor vertical drops are present. Excessive bank erosion is not present
except in locations where impacted by cattle. Park Creek riparian area is sparsely and patchily vegetated
with grasses, occasional shrubs, and scattered mature trees with large amounts of bare ground. Right bank
erosion is present in the upper reaches of the channel. Approximately five locations of severe erosion are
present within the upper 1,500 feet of the channel. Vertical faces, ranging from approximately 4 to 12 feet
high are present. Active erosion is present in several locations.
2.15.2.2
PSS Wetlands
PSS wetlands are located within the riparian area adjacent to Park Creek. Dominant vegetation includes
black bent (Agrostis gigantea), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and narrow-leaf willow (Salix exigua). Soils
typically exhibit the Redox Dark Surface Hydric Soil indicator. The wetland hydrology indicators present
include Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots and the FAC-Neutral Test and Saturation Visible on
Aerial Imagery.
2.15.2.3
PEM Wetlands
Multiple PEM wetlands are located adjacent to the Park Creek stream channel. Dominant vegetation in
these wetlands includes Baltic rush, Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis), black bent, and barnyard grass
(Echinochloa crus-galli). Soils in the PEM wetlands typically exhibit a redox dark surface hydric soil
indicator. Oxidized rhizospheres on living roots are the primary indicator of wetland hydrology, while
secondary indicators are high water table and saturation within the upper 12 inches.
A large PEM wetland is located on the terrace east of Park Creek and likely receives water from irrigation
ditches during irrigation season. Dominant vegetation includes Baltic rush, foxtail barley (Hordeum
jubatum), black bent, and common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens). This wetland appears to be
connected to Park Creek through swales, irrigation ditches, and the intermittent channel located at the
southern end of the wetland.
Several wetlands identified on the west side of Park Creek are slope wetlands. Groundwater discharge
appears to be the main source of water for these wetlands. The vegetation in these wetlands is largely
2-14
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
dominated by Baltic rush, Nebraska sedge, and common threesquare. During the wetland delineation, the
vegetation in these wetlands was highly impacted by grazing.
One large PEM wetland located in the southern part of the property is a depressional wetland. Common
vegetation in this wetland included Baltic rush, alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), coastal salt grass
(Distichlis spicata), and tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa). A salt crust is present in many
locations in and around this wetland. Water from this wetland drains south and eventually enters Park
Creek south of the property.
2-15
Burns & McDonnell
3.0
BANK DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT
"To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering. - Aldo Leopold
Burns & McDonnell believes the proposed mitigation planning described in this chapter is consistent
with, and makes a significant regional contribution to the national policy of no net loss of wetland area
and function and the CWA objective to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters. The proposed Bank Design and Management, including the assessment
of the current function and the future value of the proposed restoration areas, is informed by the
restoration vision (Section 3.3), and the following assumptions (based on Colorado Parks and Wildlife,
2011):
·
Wetland and riparian areas provide disproportionately important habitat for a diverse array of
plant and wildlife species.
·
Hydrologic, biogeochemical, and habitat functions of wetlands are ecologically significant and
socioeconomically important.
·
The condition of upland habitats that buffer wetland and riparian areas is associated with the
integrity of adjacent wetland and riparian areas. Adjacent upland habitats are also important to
wildlife species that only require wetland and riparian habitats for a portion or specific
component of their annual lifecycle.
·
Wetland types vary across geographical locations and climate, and preserving wetland diversity
across all spatial scales is paramount to the success of wetland conservation and mitigation
programs.
·
A landscape strategy is effective in restoring wetlands and conserving healthy functioning
wetlands and riparian habitats of all types.
·
Different wetland types, conditions, and goals require suitable and appropriate science-based
restoration strategies and management actions.
This chapter describes current stressors, restoration potential, conceptual restoration design, mitigation
methods, installation and maintenance, monitoring, and long-term management.
3.1
Current Site Stressors
Livestock grazing has been a traditional livelihood in Larimer County since the late 1800s and can be a
beneficial natural management tool as well as an important economic practice and western tradition.
However, where historic overgrazing occurs, it can lead to drastic and severe changes in hydrology, plant
3-1
Burns & McDonnell
and animal community composition, and soil characteristics. Livestock tend to prefer wetland and
riparian areas with access to shade, water, and good forage. This preference for wetland and riparian areas
during the hot season leads to riparian damage and is linked with overuse in areas where grazing
management does not specifically control this preference. Historic and intense livestock grazing has been
and continues to be a major source of disturbance on the Park Creek Station property, with documented
negative effects on streams, wetlands, riparian areas, and other native habitats onsite (Photopoints 2
through 6 in the Appendix).
The abundance of typical streamside vegetation has been drastically reduced, and grazing during the
summer growth period prevents significant regeneration. Decades of intensive livestock grazing on
riparian areas has reduced woody plants to widely scattered, remnant trees and occasional shrubs. The
remaining trees and shrubs provide a spatially limited source of seed, and unrestricted livestock grazing in
the creek eliminates young plants. The site has little vertical or horizontal structure, low species diversity
(richness and evenness), with only the most disturbance-resistant species still present in any numbers, and
a high percentage of non-native species (33 to 47% in most instances, depending on habitat type)
including noxious species in the riparian and wetland habitats onsite.
A review of the photolog in the Appendix will document many of the other classic effects of livestock
grazing on wetland, riparian, and upland resources described herein. Streambank disturbance and erosion
associated with historic over-grazing can lead to channel widening or incision, and entrapment of the flow
within a gully, which can reduce overbank flows and cause the riparian area to become drier (Sarr, 2002).
Well-documented physical changes associated with excessive livestock grazing such as streambank
destabilization, erosion, and soil compaction (Kauffman et al., 1983; Trimble and Mendel, 1995) have
been observed onsite. Functioning or better low-gradient streams and wetlands systems typically have a
high proportion of hydric or wetland species (Coles-Ritchie et al., 2007), while heavily impacted systems
such as Park Creek have relatively fewer hydric species.
Loss and/or simplification of wetland and riparian habitat through trampling and foraging affects most
aspects of the life history of wetland and riparian birds (Saab et al., 1995), wildlife (Lohman, 2004), and
fish (Stuber, 1986). Eighty-two percent of all bird species annually breeding in northern Colorado occur
in riparian vegetation (Knopf, 1985). The bird community onsite currently appears to be limited to more
generalist/cosmopolitan species and/or use the decadent structure such as tree swallow, barn owl, great
horned owl, European starling, and yellow warbler. Raptors such as bald eagle, northern harrier, and
American kestrel are known from the area and have been observed in the project vicinity and flying over
the site.
3-2
Burns & McDonnell
Livestock grazing impacts birds through direct effects such as trampling of nest sites for ground-nesting
birds, and indirectly causes a significant decrease in bird species abundance and diversity, largely by
eliminating or drastically reducing the characteristic habitat structure and community composition needed
by resident and migratory birds, especially shrubs and younger trees for nesting and other functions
(Taylor, 1986; Knopf et al., 1988). Livestock grazing in riparian willow (Salix spp.) communities in
Colorado resulted in a shift in the bird community composition from habitat specialists toward habitat
generalists (Knopf et al., 1988). Detailed biological surveys will be completed after acceptance of this
prospectus, but the Bank Sponsor has observed very little songbird activity, and except for raptors, the
few other birds observed were mostly cosmopolitan, nuisance, or generalist species.
Loss of vegetation structure onsite would be expected to affect invertebrate prey for insectivorous birds,
which can impact not only basic site suitability, but likely reproductive output as well. Livestock affects
large game primarily through habitat alteration and behavioral avoidance (Krausman, 1996). The Bank
Sponsor has no specific information regarding livestock-wildlife interactions onsite other than antelope
and deer have been observed onsite. Fish populations are sensitive to changes in stream cover, water
depth, and bank stability due to livestock impacts. Fish may be beneficiaries of the proposed restoration
efforts, but they are not proposed as target or indicator species or as major taxa for assessment.
Currently degraded wetland and riparian areas are characterized by:
·
Little vegetation to protect and stabilize streambanks and shade stream
·
Poor habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms
·
Poor habitat for wildlife
3.2
Expected Restoration Outcomes
Restoration and proper grazing management in wetland and riparian areas and their buffers can lead to
significant improvements in riparian and stream condition. Reduction or elimination of livestock grazing
has been associated with:
·
Increased streambank stability (Myers and Swanson, 1995)
·
Decreased soil compaction and increased infiltration (Bohn and Buckhouse, 1985; Wheeler et al.,
2002; Kauffman et al., 2004)
·
Changes in community structure and composition (Leege et al., 1981; Dobkin et al., 1998)
3-3
Burns & McDonnell
·
Increased native species density, cover, and species diversity in wetland and riparian areas
(Schultz and Leininger, 1990; Green and Kauffman, 1995; Case and Kauffman, 1997; Brookshire
et al., 2002)
·
The process of channel narrowing and stream system evolution and recovery (Magilligan and
McDowell, 1997; Platts, 1981; Hubert et al., 1985; Myers and Swanson, 1995; Clary, 1999).
There is a relationship between wetland and riparian vegetation, stable streambanks, overbank flows,
infiltration, and water storage noted by Thurow (1991) and Angers and Caron (1998). Removal of
livestock has been related to dramatic increases in infiltration, including a 3-fold increase in wet meadows
and an 11-fold increase in dry meadows (Kauffman et al., 2004). The restoration activities proposed
below will begin the positive feedback between moisture retention, plant growth, and soil macropore
formation by roots.
Plant communities can rapidly switch from disturbance-resistant ruderal grasses to hydrophytic plant
communities in riparian areas after the removal of grazing (Hough-Snee et al., 2013). Batchelor and
others (2015) reported a four-fold increase in willow and rushes, drastic decreases in bare ground, and
forb and mesic shrub cover increases by 68 and 29 percent, respectively, in the riparian areas using
passive restoration methods. With the increase in riparian vegetation, bird abundance increased in the
study period by 33 percent. The authors documented a predictable succession from bare soil to
herbaceous vegetation to woody plants following livestock exclusion.
Using ground and space images to monitor willow responses to a modified grazing regime, Booth and
others (2012) documented a nearly three-fold increase in willow cover on one stream and a more than
two-fold increase in willow cover on three other streams during the first 3 years of a new grazing plan.
They reported this trend to be consistent with the well-documented effects of reduced livestock grazing in
other studies (Brookshire et al., 2002; Case and Kauffman, 1997; Holland et al., 2005; Schulz and
Leininger, 1990).
Restored wetland and riparian areas will be characterized by:
·
Diverse vegetation and root systems, which protect and stabilize streambanks;
·
Vegetation will shade stream benefitting aquatic organisms and fish
·
Improved habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms
·
Improved habitat for wildlife
3-4
Burns & McDonnell
3.3
Restoration Vision
Aldo Leopold, one of America's most influential conservation thinkers, elaborates on the quote that
opened the chapter by writing:
People should take care of the land as a "whole organism" and try to keep all the cogs and
wheels in good working order. A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability,
and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. Aldo Leopold, Round
River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold
The simple idea of keeping all the cogs and wheels in good working order inspired our restoration vision
for Park Creek Station:
We will consider the biotic and abiotic interactions across various scales within the landscape when
planning and implementing our design and management plan, and try to conserve and restore necessary
structural elements and functional processes in their highest attainable and sustainable state. Wherever
possible we will take advantage of opportunities to restore all aspects of the "ecosystem" on the
landscape, especially when it includes the potential for multiple levels of species and habitat diversity,
and ecological, hydrologic, and other relevant interactions. The restoration project is successful when the
appropriate response variables in the science-based monitoring program show progress toward, or
attainment of, goals based on ecological concepts of integrity and stability, and considering societal
values such as ecosystem services, aesthetics, or education. Otherwise, remedial measures or adaptive
management actions should be developed and implemented.
3.4
Broad Restoration Goals
Broad goals for six key ecosystem attribute categories adopted from McDonald and others (2016) are
listed in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Park Creek Station Broad Restoration Goals
Attribute
Broad Goals
Absence of threats
Elimination or effective modification of grazing regime; control of invasive
species including noxious weeds
Physical conditions
Maximizing hydrological and substrate conditions
Species
composition
Presence of desirable plant and animal species and control of undesirable species
Structural diversity
Reference level of layers (vertical), faunal food webs, and spatial habitat
diversity
Ecosystem
functionality
Predominantly reference standard levels of growth and productivity, nutrient
cycling, decomposition, habitat elements, plant-animal interactions, normal
stressors, ongoing reproduction and regeneration of the ecosystem's species
External exchanges
Scale-specific contributions to linkages and connectivity for migration and gene
flow; and for flows including hydrology, fire, or other landscape scale processes
Source: McDonald et. al, 2016
3-5
Burns & McDonnell
These categories are by necessity broad at the prospectus level of conceptual planning. The attributes will
be subdivided into more detailed subcategories and specific project goals and objectives in the BEI.
Specific and measurable indicators of ecological performance will be developed for the various mitigation
strategies to evaluate the goals and objectives. Each restoration objective will state the attribute or subattribute being manipulated, the desired outcome (e.g., increase, decrease, maintain), the magnitude, level,
or other details of the effect (e.g., specific percent native facultative or wetter plant cover), and the
timeframe for achieving the desired outcome.
3.5
General Restoration Strategies and Actions
Wetland and riparian areas on the Front Range are often subjected to extensive anthropogenic disturbance
that often results in the wetland and riparian areas becoming heavily degraded (CPW, 2015b). The Bank
Sponsor will use livestock exclusion and/or management coupled with passive and active restoration
actions to facilitate the well-documented and expected shift to species and conditions more commonly
found in reference standard wetlands and riparian areas.
As established above, there can be dramatic results from passive restoration following the removal of
livestock from a system (Batchelor, 2015) or a modified grazing management (Booth et al., 2012).
Differential palatability in livestock forage may mean that more favored wetland and riparian species will
recover simply with removal of the grazing pressures. However, the Bank Sponsor believes that the
restoration actions described in this prospectus should include both passive and active restoration methods
to achieve the desired restoration outcomes in the typical timeframes associated with mitigation banking
and the monitoring and reporting of compensatory mitigation projects.
Active restoration methods such as planting and seeding, minor earth and streambank work, aggressive
maintenance, and proper management including any natural resource-oriented grazing management plans
and the installation of wildlife friendly fences to encourage native ungulate use will be needed to restore
onsite wetland and riparian systems given the extent of wetland and riparian damage within the proposed
Park Creek Station. Four chemical properties of the soil (pH, electrical conductivity, sodium adsorption
ratio, and percent organic matter) are especially important to consider during restoration planning
(Colorado Natural Areas Program et al., 1998). Soil tests will inform the selection of species and/or
amendments best suited for each mitigation strategy. We expect plant communities will change
dramatically in response to the restoration and management shift, more closely resembling what was
present prior to grazing pressures.
3-6
Burns & McDonnell
3.6
Bank Layout and Conceptual Design
To accomplish the whole system restoration, nine area-specific mitigation strategies will be implemented
as part of the 505-acre mitigation project at Park Creek Station (Figure 3-2). Implementation of the nine
mitigation strategies would result in approximately 110 acres of wetland and riparian restoration and
establishment, 71 acres of wetland and stream buffers, and 324 acres of upland buffers. The nine
mitigation strategies are:
·
Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation
·
Riparian Woodland Restoration
·
Riparian Woodland Enhancement
·
Riparian Woodland Establishment
·
Seasonal Wetland Establishment
·
Wetland Rehabilitation
·
Wetland Buffer
·
Stream Buffer
·
Upland Buffer Tier I
·
Upland Buffer Tier II
·
Upland Buffer Tier III
The current condition of each mitigation strategy and the restoration potential are discussed in Sections
3.6.1 through 3.6.9. The current condition of each area is photo-documented and captioned in the
Appendix, with a photo-key provided on Figure 3-1. The proposed locations of each mitigation strategy
are shown in Figure 3-2. The conversion of mitigation acres to wetland credits is covered in Chapter 5.0.
3.6.1
Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation
The Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation involves the restoration of 1.25 miles of Park Creek within the top
of upper streambank, or as previously defined, the Park Creek System (Figure 3-1). As shown on Figure
3-2, the Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation will occur within the entire length of the Park Creek System
using the "top of bank" or edge of the topographic floodplain from Figure 3-1 to define its outer east and
west boundaries. The amount proposed is approximately 9.2 acres.
3.6.1.1
Current Condition
The photographic documentation of the current condition of the Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation area is
in the Appendix, Photopoints 7 to 14.
3-7
Burns & McDonnell
The creek and hydrologic floodplain is stable and shows evidence of natural channel evolution in
reestablishing a broader hydrologic floodplain. The entire system currently lacks shrub and other
understory elements. The small patches of remaining willows are hedged or otherwise constricted in
shape from summer browsing by livestock. Wetland and riparian shrubs are largely absent or severely
limited in distribution and patch size. Species that remain in the system are persistent increaser and/or
disturbance-loving species, including non-native and noxious weeds.
The streambanks and terraces have been trampled and pugged, resulting in unvegetated and unstable
streambanks. The hydraulics of the creek appear to mimic natural patterns, with a mix of natural and
diverted water after May and return to unsupplemented hydrology by fall and through late spring again.
Adjacent groundwater sources visibly discharge into the creek from seeps along the upper eastern banks
in the northern reach. The northern reach is more entrenched with a narrower hydrologic floodplain than
the southern reach. The southern reach has a broader hydrologic floodplain and more immediate potential
for direct connections to the topographic floodplain than the northern reach. Both reaches have been
qualitatively assessed to be stable in longitudinal profile with some areas identified where bank
improvements and other physical modifications could be made to accelerate natural channel evolution.
Detailed actions will be provided in the BEI.
3.6.1.2
Proposed Actions
The implementation of 9.2 acres of Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation will be accomplished through:
·
Passive revegetation management on hydrologic floodplain and toe of slope to mid-bank.
·
Option for active management to manage species and structural diversity (i.e., small clearing and
plantings)
·
Active planting and seeding on upper banks
·
Potential for small-scale grading to pull back banks in select locations
·
Invasive species control primarily focused on vegetation management.
·
Aggressive maintenance and monitoring schedule
3.6.1.3
Benefits
The implementation of 9.2 acres of Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation will:
·
Provide a restored stream corridor as the cornerstone of the proposed project
·
Stabilize or modify streambanks
·
Increase vegetation diversity within the topographic banks of Park Creek
3-8
Burns & McDonnell
24
MN_01
25
1
W County Road 70
31
15
16
7
8
32
9
10
2
30
26
29
20
22
21
11
19
6
U1_01
p
Up
#
er
4
1
12
33
itch
3
17
5
nro
eG
27
N County Road 19
rav
i
ty D
13
Mu
Path: Z:\General\KCM\ESP\Marketing\Bus_Dev\MitBanking\Colorado\Park Creek Station\3 Tech Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\MitigationBankProspectus\PC_3-1PhotoKey.mxd ajreither 8/29/2017
COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
k
ree
rkC
Pa
23
28
18
34
14
W County
Road 68
NORTH
800
400
0
800
Scale in Feet
Photograph Location and Direction
Property Boundary
Park Creek System
Contributing Area
NHD Flowline
Current Drainage Pattern
Diversion Structure
Fence
Local Street
Delineated Wetland
Wetland Complex
Riparian Woodland
Hayfield/Grassland
Onsite Ditch
Irrigated Land
Source: Esri; USGS-National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Figure 3-1
Baseline Conditions Map
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Larimer County, Colorado
Issued: 8/29/2017
Path: Z:\General\KCM\ESP\Marketing\Bus_Dev\MitBanking\Colorado\Park Creek Station\3 Tech Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\MitigationBankProspectus\PC_3-2Restoration.mxd ajreither 8/29/2017
COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
U1_01
Mitigation Strategies
Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation (9.2 ac)
Wetland Rehabilitation (28.7 ac)
Riparian Woodland Restoration (34.3 ac)
Stream Buffer (19.4 ac)
Riparian Woodland Enhancement (5.4 ac)
Upland Buffer Tier I (182.9 ac)
Riparian Woodland Establishment(13.0 ac)
Upland Buffer Tier II (92.4 ac)
Seasonal Wetland Establishment (19.5 ac)
Upland Buffer Tier III (48.9 ac)
Property Boundary
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Canal (2.0 ac)
Excluded from Wetland
Mitigation Bank (122.5 ac)
NORTH
Wetland Buffer (51.2 ac)
Unnamed Tributary
Onsite Ditch
Diversion Structure
Access Road
Local Street
Source: Esri; USGS-National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
800
400
0
800
Scale in Feet
Figure 3-2
Restoration Concept Map
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Larimer County, Colorado
Issued: 8/29/2017
·
Provide reference quality habitat for riparian plant and animal species
·
Employ passive and active restoration methods on a site that lacks constituent elements deemed
critical for several guilds of nesting birds should lead to an increase in bird species richness,
evenness, and a significant shift toward a bird community composition closer to what would be
expected in a high quality, functioning riparian wetland ecosystem.
·
Indirectly affect stream function and water quality through shading, nutrient exchange, etc.
·
Provide corridor function for dispersal and travel of native species
3.6.2
Riparian Woodland Restoration
The Riparian Woodland Restoration comprises the area adjacent to the entire Riparian/Wetland
Rehabilitation discussed in Section 3.6.1 and several of the mitigation strategies discussed in other
sections below. The amount proposed is approximately 34.3 acres.
The Riparian Woodland Restoration extends on both sides of Park Creek in the north reach to
approximately 50 meters, with exceptions to expand slightly in the northeast and to avoid the slope
wetland complex in northwestern and riparian woodland areas on the east topographic floodplain (see
Section 3.6.3). The corridor is narrower with less boundary variation in the southern reach of Park Creek.
3.6.2.1
Current Condition
The photographic documentation of the current condition of the Riparian Woodland Restoration area is in
the Appendix, Photopoints 15 to 19.
The site is heavily grazed in the north and south reaches in summer and, as a result, there is limited or no
vegetative structure and large patches of bare ground. The stream is unshaded for most of its length.
3.6.2.2
Proposed Actions
A subset of areas will be identified for passive restoration in this zone, but the Bank Sponsor believes the
Riparian Woodland Restoration will need extensive use of active measures to successfully complete
restoration. Heavy livestock grazing reduces vegetation height profiles and therefore supports fewer birds
that feed and nest in shrubs (Verner, 1984). Consequently, one of the first actions in all riparian woodland
mitigation strategies is to restore low understory vegetation to provide better nest cover for groundnesting species and mammals.
The implementation of 34.3 acres of Riparian Woodland Restoration will be accomplished through:
3-11
Burns & McDonnell
·
Light grading to form natural micro-topographic variation, which will establish the appropriate
planting conditions
·
Installation of large vegetation structure with a combination of pole cuttings, native winnows, or
large box plantings
·
Planting and seeding with a compositionally and structural diverse native riparian plant palette to
facilitate the development of diverse patches of wetland vegetation contributing to increased
habitat interspersion functions
·
Control of exotic species before or after installation of plant material will be treated and/or
removed.
Riparian areas often include a mosaic of vegetation types, with wetlands at stream edges and upland and
transitional vegetation communities interspersed with wetland and riparian vegetation. While the Riparian
Woodland Restoration area is approximately 50 meters wide in the northern reach, a uniform planting
approach is not anticipated, especially given the area's ecological value and proximity to the
Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation zone.
Spatial heterogeneity and diverse conditions relating to composition, cover, density/spacing,
physiognomy, and distribution of plant sub-associations will be maximized in both longitudinal and
cross-section dimensions by considering and taking advantage of existing patches and gradients of soil
conditions and current vegetation where present. The implementation of limited areas of passive
revegetation and large areas of predominately active measures including grading and preparation and
planting in different densities and compositions will be documented in the grading plan submitted with
the BEI.
The grading plan will be based on a careful reading of the landscape, with the goal of restoring variable
conditions and improving horizontal and vertical structure for riparian species that may be sensitive to
bush spacing or other structural attributes. The narrower southern corridor is expected to be spatially
diverse, primarily in longitudinal profile, due to its narrowness. Amendments may be used based on the
results of soil testing and analysis. Detailed actions will be provided in the BEI.
3.6.2.3
Benefits
The implementation of 34.3 acres of Riparian Woodland Restoration will:
·
Rely on a detailed and spatially explicit planting and grading plan
·
Enhance and complement the corridor functions of the Park Creek System
·
Stabilize banks and soil, reducing the extent of bare soil adjacent to the Park Creek System
3-12
Burns & McDonnell
·
Establish space and source material to accommodate channel evolution and other long-term
processes
·
Increase cover, refugia, and forage for wildlife dependent on the Park Creek System
·
Provide an ongoing shrub and tree seed source for adjacent Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation
·
Connect the Wetland/Riparian Rehabilitation area with the Wetland Rehabilitation areas
(described below) on the west and the east through a continuous vegetated corridor up to ¾ mile
wide
·
Extend the existing riparian woodland on the east and west banks of Park Creek
3.6.3
Riparian Woodland Enhancement
Riparian Woodland Enhancement comprises the riparian woodland areas outside the Park Creek system
greater than 0.10 acre. This criterion results in two large areas: one in the southwest corner and the other
on the east bank of Park Creek in the northern reach (Figure 3-2). The amount proposed is approximately
5.4 acres.
3.6.3.1
Current Condition
The photographic documentation of the current condition of the Riparian/Wetland Enhancement areas is
in the Appendix, Photopoint 16.
Reference standard riparian woodlands on the Front Range typically have mature cottonwood stands with
shrub understories and are some of the richest wildlife habitats in Colorado. These riparian habitats are
generally dominated by plains cottonwood (Populous deltoides) as well as alder (Alnus tenuifolia), birch
(Betula occidentalis), dogwood (Cornus sericea), and willows (Salix spp.). Invasive species, such as
tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and less desirable grasses and forbs,
may invade riparian habitats throughout eastern Colorado.
Riparian woodlands are present on either side of Park Creek (Figure 2-4). The area is dominated by
legacy willows and cottonwoods, but has little to no shrub cover in the understory. There appears to be
little to no regeneration of natives in understory due to browsing and trampling effects.
While this area includes a mature stand of cottonwoods and willows, it is degraded by a lack of
understory shrubs, a lack of native understory species in general, limited tree recruitment, and a high
proportion of non-tree invasive species. Normally this habitat type can support typical species such as the
downy woodpecker (Dryobates pubescens), screech-owls (Megascops spp.), black-capped chickadee
3-13
Burns & McDonnell
(Poecile atricapillus), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechial), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and
Bullock's oriole (Icterus bullockii). To date, few of these species have been observed onsite.
3.6.3.2
Proposed Actions
The implementation of 5.4 acres of Riparian Woodland Enhancement will be accomplished through:
·
Permanent or temporary removal of livestock
·
Invasive removal/control
·
Understory management including protecting saplings from native browsers until established
·
Planting and seeding as needed to fill in cover and facilitate the eradication and control of exotic
species.
·
Volunteer recruitment, which is expected to provide the necessary cover after exotics are
removed and controlled.
No grading is proposed in the enhancement areas. If natural recruitment does not produce the necessary
increase in native cover, then planting and seeding will occur as needed to meet performance standards.
3.6.3.3
Benefits
The implementation of 5.4 acres of Riparian Woodland Enhancement will:
·
Restore important structure to jumpstart restoration processes
·
Increase abundance and distribution of higher quality graminoids and forbs
·
Allow shrub cover to be established quickly
·
Provides potential source of tree and shrub seed for natural recruitment in adjacent areas.
·
Connect and buffer Park Creek and seasonal wetlands to the east
3.6.4
Riparian Woodland Establishment
The Riparian Woodland Establishment consists of the non-inundated "fingers" between the Seasonal
Wetland Establishment area (see Section 3.6.5) and other mitigation strategies. The amount proposed is
approximately 13.0 acres.
3.6.4.1
Current Condition
The photographic documentation of the current condition of the Riparian/Wetland Establishment areas is
in the Appendix, Photopoints 19 to 22.
3-14
Burns & McDonnell
The potentially historic floodplain wetlands are currently being hayed by the lessee. The hayfield field is
vegetated with a mix of native and non-native forb and grass species. Representative forb species
observed included pigweed, knapweed, Canada thistle, houndstongue, American licorice, curly dock, and
mullein. Representative grass species included smooth brome, cheatgrass, saltgrass, foxtail barley, Great
Basin lyme grass, western wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and intermediate wheatgrass.
3.6.4.2
Proposed Actions
The implementation of 13.0 acres of Riparian Woodland Establishment will be accomplished through:
·
Active grading and revegetation management
·
Light grading to form natural micro-topographic variation, which will establish the appropriate
planting conditions
·
Installation of large vegetation structure with a combination of pole cuttings, native winnows, or
large box plantings
·
Planting and seeding with a compositionally and structurally diverse native riparian plant palette
to facilitate the development of diverse patches of wetland vegetation contributing to increased
habitat interspersion functions
·
Control of exotic species before and after installation of plant material
·
Aggressive maintenance and monitoring schedule
3.6.4.3
Benefits
The implementation of 13.0 acres of Riparian Woodland Establishment will:
·
Increase native cover, refugia, and forage for wildlife dependent on the restored habitats
·
Provide ongoing shrub and tree seed source for adjacent restored habitats
·
Buffer and connect the Seasonal Wetland Establishment and Wetland Rehabilitation areas
·
Complement adjacent diverse complex of mitigation strategies
·
Contribute to ecotonal landscape functions
3.6.5
Seasonal Wetland Establishment
The Seasonal Wetland Establishment in Figure 3-2 is created from the overlap of the hayfield and
irrigated land areas (Figure 3-1). The Bank Sponsor proposes to apply sufficient State water rights from
the North Poudre Irrigation Company to establish seasonal wetlands and connect them hydraulically to
streams onsite. The Seasonal Wetland Establishment redirects diverted water back to its original stream
and wetland hydrology function. Diverted water will supplement natural precipitation and groundwater
3-15
Burns & McDonnell
sources to establish a diverse seasonal wetland complex designed and managed for natural structure and
function and that is hydraulically connected to Park Creek or its tributary. The amount proposed is
approximately 19.5 acres.
3.6.5.1
Current Condition
Tracts of land used as hayfields are very common in the northern portion of Colorado. The potentially
historic floodplain wetlands are currently being hayed by the lessee. The photographic documentation of
the current condition of the Seasonal Wetland Establishment area is in the Appendix, Photopoints 19 to
26.
The hayfield is vegetated with a mix of native and non-native forb and grass species. Representative forb
species observed included pigweed, knapweed, Canada thistle, houndstongue, American licorice, curly
dock, and mullein. Representative grass species included smooth brome, cheatgrass, saltgrass, foxtail
barley, Great Basin lyme grass, western wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and intermediate wheatgrass.
During one of the field visits, the lessee informed Burns & McDonnell that a rattlesnake den is located
within the hayfield. The hayfield is contained with the Irrigated Land Polygon (Figure 3-1)
3.6.5.2
Proposed Actions
The ability to have self-sustaining restoration systems typically diminishes the more highly modified a
landscape becomes. A recognition of this principle is partially what drives long-term management
planning. When some measure of natural resource management is required, it provides restoration
opportunities. Our goal is to develop a conceptual seasonal wetland establishment design that uses the
available water infrastructure to revert diverted water back to its original function of growing wetlands
and maintaining flow regimes.
The Bank Sponsor will be utilizing reverted water (i.e., water originally diverted out of a functioning
stream system into a canal system that is returned to a restored ecological system). Functionally, the Bank
will use the existing Statewide water infrastructure and legal ownership system to revert this water and
establish a seasonal wetland complex similar to what may have been intact prior to statehood.
While we support in-stream easements and maintenance of flow regimes for natural resource
sustainability, it is the Bank Sponsor's understanding that the Corps has been hesitant to revert diverted
water for wetland restoration purposes based mainly on the results of a banking project permitted and
established in the late 1990's. The Bank Sponsor respectfully suggests that past projects may not
represent the final verdict on reverting diverted water for wetland restoration and compensatory
3-16
Burns & McDonnell
mitigation purposes in Colorado. Especially for a small but important component of a larger restoration
effort, and given that the design connects to jurisdictional features (Figure 3-2).
Restoration practice and regulatory standards have evolved since 1999 and the Bank Sponsor believes the
proposed Park Creek Station is consistent with the highest restoration and compensatory mitigation
standards, and therefore the Seasonal Wetland Establishment should be considered in its proper context as
a small but important component of a larger restoration effort. The Bank Sponsor believes the
establishment has its own restoration and mitigation value consistent with the overall restoration vision
for Park Creek Station and the goals of the CWA. The Bank Sponsor proposes that it is ecologically
desirable to restore the original function of the diverted water and harness its inherent ecological potential
to establish a seasonal wetland complex on its way to Park Creek and its tributary (Figure 3-2). The Bank
Sponsor respectfully suggests that not doing so may represent a potentially significant opportunity cost
for the wetlands and wetland dependent wildlife in this region of the state.
The North Poudre Irrigation Canal carries water from the Cache la Poudre River past the western portion
of the site north via the Munroe Gravity Ditch (shown on Figure 2-1 as The North Poudre Supply Canal),
where it crosses over Park Creek one mile north of the site at Weaver Ranch (Figure 3-1). The natural
and augmented flow of Park Creek continues south through Weaver Ranch into the site.
The State Land Board has senior water rights through shares with North Poudre Irrigation Company
(NPIC). Approximately 5 shares are available for mitigation/restoration purposes with approximately 5acre feet per share reliably available in terms of priority each year. Diverted water can be delivered
through calls May/June through September/October. Water can be delivered at Main A through a simple
gate and earthen channel to the Seasonal Wetland Establishment Area where it can successfully establish
wetlands using diverted water to augment natural sources (Figure 3-1).
Reference sites and quantitative methods are being used to validate the approach. The current reference
for the hydrology is the wet meadow to the east. Wet meadows are saturated near the surface in early
summer but rarely have standing water and are typically dry by the end of the growing season (Culver and
Lemly, 2013). Wet meadows provide habitat for various bird species including waterfowl, cranes, and
songbirds. Natural wet meadows are dominated by native sedges and grasses, while those influenced by
irrigation may be dominated by nonnative pasture grasses (CPW, 2015b). The Bank Sponsor will grade
and amend soils to create conditions for a diverse wetland plant community.
The design details of the Seasonal Wetland Establishment will be based on a natural hydrogeomorphic
perspective. The wetland complexes would not be big basins or have areas over a 1/10 acre inundated to
3-17
Burns & McDonnell
greater than a couple of inches. These small depressional areas would be installed or be a natural outcome
of wildlife use and other factors. Soil saturation, not inundation, would be the predominant condition.
Grading would be along topographic contours to keep water saturated to the surface with long residence
times as it moves to a point of connection with regulated features. The grading plan will control
hydrology with geomorphology to create natural contours and features.
As a proof of concept, the Bank Sponsor retained cbec eco-engineering (https://www.cbecoeng.com) to
develop a preliminary water budget for water years 2000-2016 to compare different design scenarios and
wetland performance. Daily precipitation and evapotranspiration data from nearby weather stations were
analyzed and tabulated as inputs and outputs. NRCS soils data were also incorporated to calculate existing
infiltration rates.
The native sandy-loamy soils in the project area have infiltration rates too high to maintain soil moisture
necessary for wetland plants. Native soil amended with clay via tilling and compaction, to create a 6-inch
clay amended layer per NRCS guidance, is expected to achieve a specific discharge of 0.25 inches per
day. The soil treatments were assumed to have a 12-inch uncompacted soil layer backfilled above the
treated layer to serve as the soil medium for the wetland plants.
Two target thresholds for soil moisture were considered in the water budget analysis:
·
Saturation: the 12-inch backfilled layer moisture content is completely saturated (i.e., assumed
porosity of 45.3% for the native soil) for at least 14 consecutive days in 50% of years.
·
Field Capacity: the 12-inch backfilled moisture content is no lower than field capacity (i.e.,
assumed field capacity of 20.7% for the native soil) for at least 14 consecutive days in 50% of
years.
In addition to natural direct precipitation, it was assumed that up to 25 acre-feet of water, at a discharge
rate of 1 or 2 cfs, could be reverted to the site between May and June to augment the natural inputs to
established wetlands and allow for the required soil moisture for rooting and survival of wetland plants.
The variables used in the synthetic water budget considered for the different design scenarios were:
·
total wetland size
·
soil treatment (specific discharge)
·
supplemental flow discharge
·
supplemental flow duration
3-18
Burns & McDonnell
·
supplemental flow dates (one or two events)
A total of 15 water budget simulations were run with a variety of different design assumptions and found
that 15 to 20 acres of wetlands could be established with bentonite amended soil and 25 ac-ft at 1 cfs
delivered in May. It also appears that based on site topography and the need for balancing cut/fill onsite,
site grading will need to be limited to 15 to 20 acres of established wetlands. Based on a water delivery of
25 ac-ft, 15 acres of wetlands can be established to meet saturation in all water years (WYs), or 20 acres
of wetlands can be established to meet saturation criteria in 9 out of 17 WYs (> 50% of WYs) or field
capacity in all WYs. The current system can accommodate a delivery of 1 cfs for an extended period (up
to 3 weeks, 24 hours/day).
The implementation of 19.5 acres of Seasonal Wetland Establishment will be accomplished through
minor grading with soil amendments and a managed hydrology that mimics natural hydrology. Our
delivery system involves one gate and two deliveries per season. This simplicity results in operational
security and reliability. Details of maintenance allocations and protocols will be included in the BEI.
3.6.5.3
Benefits
The implementation of 19.5 acres of Seasonal Wetland Establishment will:
·
Revert water diverted from natural systems back to the establishment of wetlands managed for
natural hydrogeomorphic and physiognomic characteristics
·
Use reverted water to provide hydrologic connectivity to Park Creek and adjacent habitats
·
Incorporate topographic complexity to create variable hydrologic conditions
·
Establish large areas for diverse wetland plant community establishment
·
Become a functional "plant nursery" to jumpstart restoration process in other areas
·
Provide the link to connect and further buffer existing and restored wetland systems across the
valley floor
3.6.6
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Rehabilitation comprises all substantially degraded jurisdictional wetlands outside of the Park
Creek System including the wet meadow on the east and the slope wetland and alkali playa complexes in
the west. The amount proposed is approximately 28.7 acres.
3.6.6.1
Current Condition
The photographic documentation of the current condition of the Wetland Rehabilitation area is in the
Appendix, Photopoints 27 to 32.
3-19
Burns & McDonnell
Groundwater has created additional slope wetland acres along the base of buttes or significant breaks in
slope on the west and east of Park Creek in the Northern Reach. Vegetation within the existing wet
meadows and slope wetland complex has been highly altered by agricultural management and the areas
have up to 44% nonnative species. Some areas of native vegetation persist, however, including species of
sedges (Carex spp.), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespetosa), and showy milkweed (Aesclepias
speciosa).
The jurisdictional portion of the alkali playa are included in this mitigation strategy. Overgrazing of
playas and their watersheds by livestock can be detrimental to biodiversity in playa ecosystems (Haukos
and Smith 1994). In grassland situations, livestock often congregate in playas because of early growth of
plants, increased plant production compared to surrounding areas, and favorable microclimate during
harsh weather. Under these situations, playa vegetation is greatly reduced through consumption and
trampling. This has been a common occurrence that negatively influences the current condition of the
Alkali Playa Complex habitat onsite.
Guthery et al. (1982) found that grazing in playa basins reduced plant diversity and increased undesirable
plant species and recommended elimination of grazing in playas in most circumstances. Historically,
plants in playas were grazed seasonally by many wildlife species, including pronghorn (Antilocapra
americana Ord), elk (Cervus elaphus Linnaeus), and bison (Bison bison Hamilton-Smith). Any grazing
by wildlife today is generally by small mammals, although pronghorn and deer (Odocoileus spp.) have
been observed onsite.
3.6.6.2
Proposed Actions
The implementation of 28.7 acres of Wetland Rehabilitation will be accomplished through:
·
Permanent or temporary removal of livestock
·
Invasive removal/control
·
Vegetation management including protecting desirable recruits until established
·
Planting and seeding to meet performance standards for diversity and function
·
Minor grading and recontouring as needed
3.6.6.3
Benefits
The implementation of 28.7 acres of Wetland Rehabilitation will:
·
Remove major stressors from jurisdictional wetland onsite
·
Restore functionality of jurisdictional wetlands onsite
3-20
Burns & McDonnell
3.6.7
Wetland Buffer
Wetland Buffer includes the remaining non-jurisdictional areas of the slope wetland, wet meadow, and
alkali playa complexes. These areas are intricately linked to the function of existing jurisdictional
wetlands onsite. The amount proposed is approximately 51.2 acres.
3.6.7.1
Current Condition
The photographic documentation of the current condition of the Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation is in the
Appendix, Photopoints 27 to 30.
The Wetland Buffers comprise the remaining wetland complexes onsite and, as such, are intricately
linked to the delineated wetlands. It should be noted that the drainage pathways in the slope wetland
complex are currently altered form the NHD data (Figure 3-2). Detailed floristic assessments, soil
analyses, and detailed topographic survey information will further inform restoration actions in all
Wetland Buffer areas. See Wetland Rehabilitation section for current conditions.
3.6.7.2
Proposed Actions
The implementation of 51.2 acres of Wetland Buffer will be accomplished through:
·
Permanent or temporary removal of livestock
·
Invasive removal/control
·
Vegetation management including protecting desirable recruits until established
·
Planting and seeding to meet performance standards for diversity and function
·
Minor grading and recontouring as needed
3.6.7.3
Benefits
The implementation of 51.2 acres of Wetland Buffer will:
·
Remove major stressors adjacent to jurisdictional wetland onsite
·
Restore functionality to non-jurisdictional areas that immediately buffer jurisdictional wetlands
3.6.8
Stream Buffer
The Stream Buffer area was delineated within approximately 25m on both sides of the unnamed tributary
in the southeast where it forms a bed and bank at the terminus of the wet meadow and runs across the
property line before reaching Park Creek (Figure 3-2). The amount proposed is approximately 19.4 acres.
3-21
Burns & McDonnell
3.6.8.1
Current Condition
The photographic documentation of the current condition of the Stream Buffer is in the Appendix,
Photopoints 33 and 34.
The mixed grasslands onsite including those adjacent to the stream channel are generally degraded and
lack the diversity and extent of species that would have historically been present. The stream buffer
restores and manages a more robust riparian growth of the mixed grassland adjoining the length of the
unnamed tributary in the southeast quarter of the bank (Figure 3-2). The buffer protects the groundwater
areas of potential "in-stream" wetlands and minor improvements to the condition farther downstream may
be implemented).
3.6.8.2
Proposed Actions
The implementation of 19.4 acres of Stream Buffer will be accomplished through:
·
Permanent or temporary removal of livestock
·
Invasive removal/control
·
Vegetation management including protecting desirable recruits until established
·
Planting and seeding to meet performance standards for diversity and function
·
Minor grading and recontouring as needed
3.6.8.3
Benefits
The implementation of 19.4 acres of Stream Buffer will:
·
Remove major stressors adjacent to jurisdictional wetland onsite
·
Restore functionality to non-jurisdictional areas that immediately buffer jurisdictional wetlands
3.6.9
Upland Buffer
Part of the process of stemming the degradation of Park Creek and its associated wetland and riparian
systems should include improving upland conditions to reduce the erosive power of runoff onsite among
other benefits. In addition, improvements to the condition of upland vegetation directly adds to the value
of the proposed wetland and riparian mitigation strategies and will be required for full recovery of the
landscape diversity onsite.
For instance, the bird communities of riparian and wetland areas and adjoining uplands are not
independent (Knopf and Samson, 1987). As cited by Knopf and Samson, many species of birds need
riparian vegetation to meet many life history requirements but forage in surrounding uplands (Pleasants
3-22
Burns & McDonnell
1979). In terms of riparian birds using upland sites to breed, Knopf cites Szaro and Jakle (1985) who
concluded that their documented pattern of riparian birds disproportionately contributing to the upland
breeding bird avifauna extended 0.6-1.0 km into the uplands.
Other examples of upland and non-jurisdictional habitat by wetland and riparian dependent includes the
Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) use of upland habitats 100m beyond the 100year floodplain (USFWS, 2003). While we are not currently proposing a species overlay, the restoration
of a well-developed plains riparian vegetation with adjacent, restored grassland and buffer communities,
and a nearby water source could result in habitat that may be suitable for the species.
FACWet currently recognizes a 250m Contributing Area around the wetland or riparian assessment area
as the distance to measure buffer attributes. Therefore, to maximize ecological gains and overwhelmingly
positive species and water quality interactions across the full landscape, we believe upland (and other)
buffers are a well-established and important design element to include in high-quality wetland mitigation
designs (McDonald et al., 2016).
However, the Bank Sponsor recognizes that not all upland buffers are equal in terms of ecological
function and value to jurisdictional and riparian features. Therefore, we propose to tailor long term
management planning for these areas based on the following tiered system:
·
Tier I- Defined as (1) any areas that buffers multiple wetlands defined as buffering more than one
jurisdictional feature within either 250M of Park Creek and/or 100M from jurisdictional wetlands
or streams unless there is a major disruption to the buffer width (see FACWet list); (2) Tier 1
areas are more intensive monitoring and management with corresponding
responsibilities/requirements and restrictions in Tier I areas.
·
Tier II- Remaining upland areas greater than 1/10th acre within 250M of Park Creek or 100M
from jurisdictional wetlands or streams unless there is a major disruption to the buffer width (see
FACWet list) and any rare or ecologically important habitats, features, or patches (barrens, east
intermittent/ephemeral drainages); current habitat for listed or rare species; small patches that
provide spatially important buffers to any of the above; and
·
Tier III- Remaining upland areas not otherwise defined above.
The amount proposed of Upland Buffers is 324.2 acres (Figure 3-2).
3-23
Burns & McDonnell
3.6.9.1
Current Condition
Upland buffers occur in three main habitat types: mixed grassland, upland shrubland, and Niobrara
barrens. The Niobrara barrens have unique restoration and management needs that are currently being
studied. The uplands surrounding Park Creek are primarily composed of heavily grazed shortgrass prairie
and shrublands. These two habitats are heavily grazed and have a high percentage of non-native species,
47% and 44%, respectively. Rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) dominates the northern portion of the
parcel. Kochia is dominating in the southern and eastern half of the parcel. Kochia and cheatgrass control
are priority management concerns for the bank site. There also exists an opportunity for restoration of
mountain mahogany-New Mexico feathergrass (Cercocarpus montanus/ Stipa neomexicana) plant
association.
3.6.9.2
Proposed Actions
The unique opportunities are under investigation and planning. Volunteer recruitment is expected to
provide the necessary cover after exotics are removed and controlled. If natural recruitment does not
produce the necessary increase in native cover, then planting and seeding will occur as needed to meet
performance standards.
Basic actions to be completed include:
·
Remove or manage livestock
·
Invasive control
·
Shrub management including protecting desirable shrub recruits for native browsers until
established
·
Planting or seeding as needed to fill in cover and facilitate the eradication and control of exotic
species.
·
Installation of wildlife friendly fencing as needed on perimeters
3.6.9.3
Benefits
The implementation of 324.2 acres of Upland Buffers will:
·
Restore important pollinator habitat to facilitate restoration process in other areas
·
Conserve and restore essential habitat for many Colorado bird and other wildlife species.
·
Establish shrub cover quickly in appropriate areas
·
Provide a source of shrub and grass seed for natural recruitment in adjacent areas.
·
Connect and buffer Park Creek and wetland habitats
3-24
Burns & McDonnell
·
3.7
Contribute to water quality and habitat functions beneficial to adjacent wetland and riparian areas
Mitigation Roles and Responsibilities
The Bank Sponsor will be ultimately responsible for the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of the
proposed Park Creek Station Wetland Mitigation Bank. The Bank Sponsor will be responsible for the
implementation and success of the wetland mitigation and for funding all aspects of the mitigation,
including design, implementation, and any necessary remedial measures. The Bank Sponsor's project
manager will be responsible for coordinating project progress and overseeing the installation,
maintenance, and monitoring of the mitigation work as described below. However, the project will
require specialized restoration services to complete. These may be contracted internally or externally by
the Bank Sponsor.
3.7.1
Restoration Ecologist
The Bank Sponsor will assign a qualified restoration ecologist with experience successfully managing the
installation, maintenance, and monitoring of wetland mitigation projects. The restoration ecologist will
supervise all phases of compensatory mitigation implementation, including the protection of adjacent
biological resources; exotics removal; erosion control; soil preparation; seeding; planting; and
maintenance, monitoring, and reporting as applicable. The restoration ecologist will attend all relevant
implementation meetings. The restoration ecologist must approve any seed substitutions before
installation/application. Overall supervision of maintenance will be the responsibility of the restoration
ecologist. The restoration ecologist will meet with the landscape maintenance contractor prior to the start
of work to assist the contractor with their understanding of the maintenance provisions of the final plan,
as well as make recommendations for current maintenance procedures. The restoration ecologist will
provide maintenance workers or a landscape maintenance contractor with a written checklist of tasks to
be performed after each monitoring visits. The restoration ecologist will document that the proper
landscape maintenance procedures are followed as outlined in the final instrument. The restoration
ecologist will be responsible for qualitative and quantitative monitoring and reporting. The restoration
ecologist will use horticultural and botanical monitoring results to determine necessary actions as needed.
The restoration ecologist will have the authority to redirect implementation and maintenance crews in
keeping with the goals, objectives, and performance standards of the final mitigation and monitoring plan.
3.7.2
Installation Contractor
Bank Sponsor or its representative will use a qualified installation contractor with demonstrated
experience successfully installing native habitat revegetation projects. The contractor will be responsible
for implementing and initially maintaining the mitigation effort onsite. The contractor will have specific
3-25
Burns & McDonnell
documented experience with the installation and maintenance of restoration projects representative of the
habitats included in this plan. The qualified contractor will be able to demonstrate past work that has
resulted in successful native plant seeding establishment. All work will be performed by a trained crew in
accordance with the standards and practices related to the trade. The installation contractor will maintain
an experienced full-time supervisor on the project site when planting is in progress. The responsibility of
the installation contractor is finished when the restoration ecologist concurs at the end of the 120-day
establishment period that this phase of work is completed per the specifications and requirements of the
plan.
3.7.3
Maintenance Contractor
The maintenance contractor will provide routine maintenance of the mitigation areas during the 5- year
monitoring period, as directed by the restoration ecologist. The maintenance contractor can be the same
entity as the installation contractor. Primary maintenance activities include weed control, care of any
cutting plants, erosion control, and trash removal. The maintenance contractor will be responsible for (1)
maintaining the existing materials implemented during the planting/seed installation phase and (2)
installing and maintaining erosion control materials in additional areas (identified by the contractor,
restoration ecologist, or Bank Sponsor project manager) where the need for erosion control may develop
during the 5-year maintenance program. Any problems identified in the mitigation areas will be addressed
in a timely manner. The maintenance contractor will care for the native plants in the mitigation areas,
including cuttings, seeded species, and native volunteers. Plant care will be sufficient to meet the success
standards on schedule. If mitigation areas are not meeting native plant survival and percent cover, or any
other performance standard, then the maintenance contractor will coordinate with Bank Sponsor or its
representative to implement supplemental seeding.
3.8
Installation and Maintenance
The intent of the maintenance program is to ensure the success of the proposed wetland mitigation
described in this Prospectus. Primary maintenance activities would include weed control, care of plants,
oversight and repair (if necessary) of the irrigation system during the plant establishment (if used),
erosion control, and trash removal. The maintenance contractor will provide routine maintenance of the
mitigation area during the establishment period, and as needed throughout the 5-year monitoring period
for the mitigation area, as directed by the restoration ecologist. The goal of this plan is to create
functioning, self-sufficient habitats that fulfill specified performance standards during and after the
monitoring period.
3-26
Burns & McDonnell
3.8.1
Plants and Seed
It is anticipated that cuttings, seed mixes, container and other plants, and natural recruitment will be the
prime source of native plant cover in the mitigation areas, although no planting or seeding is currently
proposed in the enhancement areas. A plant palette and seed mix will be developed specifically for each
mitigation strategy. More species can be added or substituted at the discretion of the restoration ecologist.
All container plants, cuttings and seed materials should be locally propagated and collected. The
restoration ecologist will inspect all container plants and reject plants that are dead, root bound, stunted,
pest-infested, diseased, or unacceptable for other reasons.
Pits for container-grown plants will generally be dug twice as deep and twice as wide as the container,
and the planting soil must be thoroughly wetted before planting. Depending on the results of soil
analyses, fertilizer amendments may be recommended for the container plant pits.
Specific stem cutting procedures will be in the final plans and specifications submitted with the BEI;
however, cuttings placed in or near the groundwater table should be sufficiently long enough to reach the
water table. Larger pole cutting could be used individually or as winnows placed directly into the
groundwater via trenching or auguring. Cuttings will be installed where there is an appropriate amount of
soil moisture or a water table close to the ground surface.
Maintenance of any plants is an important aspect of the overall program. The maintenance of plants
includes maintaining weed-free planting basins until the plants are adequately established (e.g., over 4
feet high for shrubs), maintaining a proper mulch layer around the plants (when necessary), applying
appropriate amounts of irrigation water if needed, and addressing disease or pest problems.
Seed will be labeled with the species, purity, germination, percent live seed, and quantity of seed in
pounds. Prior to application, the restoration ecologist will confirm the specified seed has been delivered to
the respective sites. The mitigation areas will be maintained and monitored for 5 years to help natural
recruitment and growth, establish any cuttings/container plants and seeded species, and to control exotics.
3.8.2
Irrigation
While not anticipated to be necessary, any temporary irrigation system will be tested by the maintenance
contractor monthly throughout the first year. If used in any areas, irrigation would not be anticipated to be
needed beyond year three. All necessary repairs and replacement of drip or micro-spray heads will be
made in a timely manner. The irrigation schedule will provide adequate water to maximize the
establishment of container plants and seeded species without creating conditions that promote nonnative
species dependent upon moist soil conditions. The restoration ecologist will determine the need for
3-27
Burns & McDonnell
changes in irrigation schedules in consultation with the maintenance contractor. An accurate record of
these activities will be maintained during the maintenance and monitoring period.
3.8.3
Erosion Control
The maintenance contractor will control erosion within and immediately adjacent to the mitigation areas
during the 5-year maintenance period. The restoration ecologist and maintenance contractor will
determine the most effective and least damaging application of erosion control materials to address the
identified problem. Appropriate erosion control materials include, but are not limited to, rice straw
wattles, rolled erosion control products (e.g., jute fabric, coconut husk fabric, etc.), and/or supplemental
container planting or seed application.
3.8.4
Invasive Species Control
Invasive plant species will be controlled within the mitigation site throughout the duration of the
monitoring period. Control methods are used not only to eliminate individual plants but also to suppress
the growth and reproduction of (or otherwise stress) targeted weed populations, especially deep-rooted,
creeping perennials which cannot easily be reduced or thinned. Such suppression of weed populations
helps to relieve desirable native species of the competitive pressures exerted by the weeds and promote
the development of a healthy native plant community resistant to further invasions. Invasive species
control may take the form of biological, mechanical, chemical or cultural controls.
The goal of the weed control program is not specifically the elimination of undesirable species as much as
the development and maintenance of a healthy, desirable community of native species. The use of a
combination of techniques makes it possible to alter site availability for weeds and disturbances, control
colonization events, and manipulate species performance to restore the existing plant community. At a
minimum, the following weed removal methods should be included in the implementation specifications:
·
Weed removal will be performed mechanically, chemically, and biologically.
·
Prior to the initial planting, a series of weed control techniques will be used to provide plantings
an advantage during the first year of growth. Pulled weeds will be transported offsite
immediately to prevent onsite seed dispersal.
·
Weed control will continue during planting and seeding and during the post implementation and
monitoring periods within the mitigation area, as necessary.
·
Weed seedlings and sprouts within the mitigation area will be continually removed before they
attain 12 inches in height or before they produce seed, whichever is first.
3-28
Burns & McDonnell
·
The restoration ecologist will monitor weed control and exotic species removal throughout the
year.
·
Weed species are divided between aggressive, invasive exotics that can outcompete desirable
native species if not controlled, and more benign weed species, which tend to fade away as native
species become established. Invasive exotics will be controlled wherever they occur within the
mitigation areas. The restoration ecologist will coordinate with the maintenance contractor to
identify weed species that must be controlled and to take advantage of opportunities for
eradication.
3.9
Performance Standards and Monitoring Compliance
Detailed performance standards will be provided in the BEI and only a brief overview of our intended
approach to monitoring and assessment of the proposed restoration program is presented in this section. A
robust monitoring program will have physical and biological indicators of performance. The Bank
Sponsor views the project as an ecosystem recovery project and will be working with local and regional
experts to develop a monitoring program to document the recovery of floral, faunal, and physical changes
to the site as result of the restoration actions. Only monitoring that supports the assessment of compliance
with required performance standards will be reported in the annual reports. Additional monitoring or
research may be conducted and made available at the discretion of the Bank Sponsor.
Mitigation monitoring of specific taxa would follow routine or protocol methods for:
·
Amphibians: visual observation and capture using aquatic dip nets
·
Reptiles: visual observation
·
Mammals: tracking studies, live traps, pitfall traps, and mist nets
·
Birds: visual observation or identification by song or call
·
Insects: aerial net and visual observation
·
Plants: visual observation
·
Plant communities: visual observation
The Bank Sponsor believes general riparian bird community development with identification of specific
guilds or "target" species will be one appropriate measure of biological performance. Specific monitoring
of wildlife will be assessed and presented in the BEI.
We outline a general program here that would be used to establish a more detailed monitoring protocol to
assess vegetative cover and horticultural standards. Final performance standards will state that the site
3-29
Burns & McDonnell
have a dominance of native vegetation and low exotic species cover and a rigorous method of assessing
compliance. We expect all final cover and composition standards being attained through container
plantings, cuttings, seeding, invasive species management and natural recruitment. Additional hydrologic,
faunal, and other additional monitoring information will be provided in the detailed restoration plan and
sheets provided in the BEI along with method and location-specific performance standards.
3.9.1
Qualitative Monitoring
Qualitative surveys will occur in March, June, September, and December of the monitoring year.
Qualitative surveys comprise a general site walkover and written characterization of the mitigation
planting. The restoration ecologist will make general observations of the status of any mitigation
plantings and the extent of natural recruitment of native and exotic species. The restoration ecologist will
also record signs of wildlife use (e.g., nesting sites, roosting sites, animal burrows, tracks, scat, birds, and
other animals detected) within the mitigation areas. During the qualitative surveys, the restoration
ecologist will (1) visually estimate composition and overall cover, (2) document evidence of natural
recruitment, and (3) estimate container plant and cutting mortality and survivorship. The restoration
ecologist will identify potential soil erosion, flood damage, vandalism, weeds, and pest problems. Plant
and irrigation (if installed) maintenance needs will be recorded on standard maintenance checklists and
sent to the maintenance contractor and Bank Sponsor. The restoration ecologist must retain copies of all
checklists and field notes to compile monitoring reports. Any problems identified by the restoration
ecologist will be immediately brought to the attention of the maintenance contractor and Bank Sponsor,
with corrective measures taken within 2 weeks of identifying the problem whenever possible, but always
within the shortest reasonable timeframe given logistics and other constraints.
3.9.2
Quantitative Monitoring
Quantitative monitoring will occur in June and/or September of the monitoring year depending on the
mitigation strategy. The restoration ecologist will determine the maximum number, size, and location of
transects necessary to obtain a vegetation sample that provides good spatial coverage and unbiased
samples of all mitigation areas and habitats; however, stratified random sampling is recommended. The
restoration ecologist will establish the equivalent coverage of two 2-meter by 50-meter belt transects per
acre within the mitigation site (number and position of permanent transects will be placed at the discretion
of the restoration ecologist to ensure an unbiased sample). Each permanent transect must be identified on
a map, staked in the field, and photographed to reestablish transects should the stakes be removed. During
quantitative monitoring, the restoration ecologist will record percent cover, species composition,
mortality, and number of natural recruits.
3-30
Burns & McDonnell
The Bank Sponsor is exploring additional use of existing aerial and satellite imagery and/or projectspecific drone work to document pre- and post-restoration conditions using vegetation indicators (Booth
et.al. 2012). Details regarding additional quantitative monitoring efforts will be presented in the BEI.
3.9.3
Photo Documentation
Each quantitative monitoring visit will include photo documentation of each transect. Photos will be taken
from the same vantage point in the same direction. All photo documentation points and directions will be
mapped and included in the monitoring reports.
3.9.4
Annual Monitoring Reports
The annual monitoring reports will be prepared in accordance with the Corps' Mitigation and Monitoring
Requirements and all other permit requirements. The annual reports will include both qualitative and
quantitative data, along with photos from established photo points. The annual monitoring reports will
also include the following:
·
A list of names, titles, and companies of all persons who participated in monitoring activities and
contributed to report preparation.
·
A copy of any relevant communications and/or subsequent letters of modification pertaining to
the mitigation project attached as an appendix.
·
General observations, analysis of quantitative monitoring data (e.g., success, failure, remedial
actions), assessment of vegetation growth in meeting the performance standard, comparisons of
current vegetation growth to the previously documented monitoring period, and progress toward
final acceptance.
·
Photographs.
·
Maps identifying monitoring areas, transects, quadrates, planting zones, and habitat types, as
appropriate.
·
A final comprehensive report summarizing results over the 5-year monitoring period will be
submitted to the agencies upon completion of the monitoring program.
A monitoring year would begin on January 1. Quarterly visits for qualitative monitoring would occur in
March, June, September, and December of each monitoring year. Quantitative monitoring would occur in
June and September of each monitoring year. Monitoring reports will be submitted annually to the IRT.
Annual reports are proposed to be submitted to the agencies in February of the year following the
monitoring year (e.g., the report for monitoring year 2019 would be submitted in February 2020).
3-31
Burns & McDonnell
3.10
Long-term Management
Long-term management roles and responsibilities were covered in Section 1.1.3. Long-term financial
assurances may be in the form of an endowment, an escrow account funded with a percentage of each
credit transfer, or other appropriate long-term management funds as discussed in Section 1.1.5 and will be
further defined in the BEI. The interest from the non-wasting endowment fund will be used by the longterm manager for anticipated maintenance and management costs.
In this section, we briefly present our fundamental long-term management goals and a framework for
organizing our draft management plan. We conclude with a summary of fundamental management
outcomes after a brief statement on the potential role of grazing management.
3.10.1
Long-term Management Goals
The Bank Sponsor proposes the following overarching long-term management goals to maintain the ongoing wetland, riparian, and conservation values of the restored, enhanced, and established habitats will
guide the planning effort for the BEI:
·
Maintain or improve conditions that meet the Broad Restoration Goals (Section 3.4).
·
Establish ecologically meaningful and logistically efficient Management Units
·
Maintain necessary infrastructure as needed to accomplish Management Objectives.
·
Implement routine maintenance, monitoring, and reporting of the mitigation habitats as described
in a Long-Term Management Plan.
·
Maintain restored, enhanced, and established habitats to be as functionally close to reference
standard as possible.
·
Maintain vegetation diversity and other prescribed ecological attributes within mitigation
strategies or management units and the ecological conditions that favor the desired type of natural
community within those stands.
·
As feasible, develop and implement safe prescribed fire applications for restoring and
maintaining fire-adapted landscapes and natural communities.
·
Manage invasive species and undesirable native species using appropriate techniques to meet
long-term management objectives.
·
Follow appropriate and current best management practices (BMP)s when conducting
management activities.
3-32
Burns & McDonnell
3.10.2
Management Framework
We propose to use a straight forward long-term management framework consisting of the following
management elements:
·
Element A Documentation
·
Element B - Habitat Management
·
Element C Infrastructure and Facilities
·
Element D Security, Safety and Public Access
·
Element E Adaptive Management
·
Element F Reporting and Administration
Management elements will be expanded to include specific management tasks with associated objectives,
thresholds for action, timing, and performance measures.
3.10.3
Potential Role of Grazing Management
Grazing in wetland and riparian areas is expected to be drastically reduced or eliminated by fencing
livestock out of wetland and riparian areas and this technique may be used in other mitigation areas to
allow vegetation to recover. However, techniques such as flash grazing can reduce thatch and help
establish appropriate conditions for native plant recruitment. Rotational grazing including strict protocols
to control the intensity, duration, and timing will be considered to assist achieve long-term management
goals.
If the Bank Sponsor and the IRT agree based on a science-based assessment that a pre-determined grazing
schedule is desirable or necessary for natural land management purposes in accordance with the stated
goals above, then grazing intensities and stocking rates will be set to maintain appropriate forage and
thatch levels along with protected habitats in accordance with any grazing plans prepared for the
site. Forage levels will be assessed throughout the site to create a visual cross section. The forage
assessment may be conducted through photographic comparison utilizing an industry accepted photo
guide. The intent of the grazing plan will be to implement management strategies that maintain the native
wetland and upland habitats and the target species that depend on them in as close to reference conditions
as cost-effectively as possible, and continue to support management goals in perpetuity.
Specific actions under consideration and review:
3-33
Burns & McDonnell
·
Permanently excluding livestock from wetland and riparian areas and other areas deemed high
risk and with otherwise poor recovery potential when there is no practical way to protect them
while grazing adjacent uplands.
·
Maintaining the riparian and wetland areas within a separate pasture with separate management
objectives and strategies.
·
Controlling the timing of grazing to: (a) keep livestock off streambanks when they are most
vulnerable to damage; and (b) coincide with the physiological needs of target plant species.
·
Adding more rest to the grazing cycle to increase plant vigor, allow streambanks to heal, or
encourage more desirable plant species composition.
·
Limiting grazing intensity to a level which will maintain desired species composition and vigor.
·
Changing from cattle to other livestock such as sheep or goats.
The State Land Board may continue leasing the site solely to maintain the natural processes that grazing
provides for a grassland or other ecosystem management and to maintain the long-term health of the bank
site. All leasing activities will be subject to the terms of the long-term management plan.
3.10.4
Long-term Management Outcomes
The details of interim and long-term management will be provided in the BEI. The following fundamental
outcomes would be expected from our long-term management program:
·
Site access is maintained and secured.
·
Necessary infrastructure for management is maintained.
·
Management actions are completed on schedule and within budget.
·
Ongoing compliance with land protection and mitigation instrument requirements
·
Proper documentation is collected, organized, and made available.
3-34
Burns & McDonnell
4.0
OVERALL BANK BENEFITS
The Park Creek Station site was selected and the effort was made to conduct preliminary investigations
and develop a prospectus-level conceptual design for a wetland mitigation bank because the Bank
Sponsor believes there is an excellent and unique potential to improve wetland, riparian, and stream
functions on a site with significant natural, cultural and open space values. Located where Park Creek
punches through the Park Creek Hogback, the site has excellent restoration potential of wetland, riparian,
and stream resources of the type that are increasingly scarce along the northern Front Range, where most
streams of this sort no longer have their natural flows or follow their natural stream course.
The establishment of Park Creek Station would result in:
·
1.25 mile of restoration along Park Creek
·
57.5 acres of Wetland Restoration and Establishment
·
52.7 acres of Riparian Restoration and Establishment
·
253.5 acres of Priority Buffers
·
141 acres of Additional High-Quality Buffers
·
Whole site natural resource management program
·
Substantial functional uplift to the Park Creek System
·
Restoration and conservation of landscape-level wetland diversity including functional uplift of
multiple hydrogeomorphic and vegetation community types
·
Excellent habitat interspersion functions and reference-standard buffer conditions
·
Contributions to lower temperature regime and higher water quality of Park Creek
·
Potential refugia site for sensitive and listed species
·
Increased habitat potential for state and federally listed species
·
Restoration and management of multiple levels of biological diversity
·
Regional ecological value
Our Bank Design and Management is expected to result in substantial improvements to the ecological
function and conservation value of critical wetland, riparian, stream, and other high value natural
resources. We believe the overall benefits of establishing Park Creek Station include ecological,
regulatory, and economic benefits.
4-1
Burns & McDonnell
4.1
Ecological Benefits
Impacts to wetlands and riparian have negative consequence for vegetation and the species that depend on
these specific habitat characteristics or habitat features for all or some portion of their lifecycle.
Conversely, restoration of these systems provides benefits to characteristic structure, processes, and
species of wetland and riparian systems. The successful conservation of biological diversity requires
taking advantage of opportunities to restore, enhance, establish, and conserve wetland and riparian
habitats across all levels including genetic, species, community, and landscape diversity.
4.1.1
Current and Expected Post-Project FACWet Scores
Wetlands provide functions and values to society. One way to determine the ecological lift of a site is to
quantify the current ecological functions of the site before restoration and then to measure those same
ecological functions after site development. In Colorado, two methods are currently used to assess
wetland and riparian areas. These are the Colorado Department of Transportation's Functional
Assessment of Colorado Wetlands (FACWet) Method and the Ecological Integrity Assessment for
Colorado Wetlands, Version 2.0. The Bank Sponsor will be using both methods as part of the baseline
documentation and restoration plans included in the BEI.
A preliminary general assessment of Park Creek before and after restoration was completed using
FACWet. We projected scores based on conditions documented in the Appendix and the assumption that
effective restoration would be implemented and maintained as generally described in Chapter 3. Results
of these evaluations are included below.
Important variables that provide a good restoration baseline and are often beyond the restoration
ecologist's control scored functional (variables 4-6) or near reference standard (V1.1, V2.2, V2.3). Other
scores typically in the control of the restoration ecologist to effect positive change scored low (e.g., 3.1
Buffer Condition). Final scores in the restorable attributes generally scored in the Functionally Impaired
category in the current condition demonstrate that the aquatic resources in the study area have been
subjected to dramatic, ubiquitous alteration.
We assumed restoration and management would generally raise these restorable variables to score in the
Highly Functioning or even Reference Standard categories. The potential for functional increase captured
by a basic comparison of pre-restoration and post-restoration scores is substantial (Table 3-2).
4-2
Burns & McDonnell
Table 4-1: FACWet Variable Scores for Current and Proposed Post-Project Conditions
Variable
Current
Condition
s
Category
0.80
B
Highly
Functioning
TBD
-
1.2 Migration
Dispersal
Barriers
PostProject
Condition
Category
Rationale
0.90
B
Highly
Functioning
Onsite improvements
related to wildlife
movement raise score
TBD
-
Historical ecology studies
in progress
0.80
B
Highly
Functioning
0.90
A
Reference
Standard
Installation of wildlife
friendly fencing and other
onsite improvements gives
small boost to score
2. Contributing
Area
0.60
D
Functionally
Impaired
0.95
A
Reference
Standard
Differences in Buffer
Condition drive scoring
2.1 Buffer
Condition Score
0.60
D
Functionally
Impaired
1.00
A
Reference
Standard
Mitigation actions to
create reference standard
buffer condition
2.2 Buffer
Extent
0.90
A
Reference
Standard
0.90
A
Reference
Standard
Proposed actions do not
change score
0.90
A
Reference
Standard
0.90
A
Reference
Standard
Proposed actions do not
change score
2.4 Surrounding
Land Use
0.60
D
Function
Impaired
0.90
B
Highly
Functioning
Proposed Management
change drives scoring
3. Water Source
0.71
C
Functioning
0.79
C
Functioning
Proposed actions do not
change score
4. Water
Distribution
0.71
C
Functioning
0.70
C
Functioning
Proposed actions do not
change score
5. Water
Outflow
0.71
C
Functioning
0.79
C
Functioning
Proposed actions do not
change score
6.
Geomorphology
0.75
C
Functioning
0.75
C
Functioning
Proposed actions do not
change score
7. Water and
Soil Chemical
Environment
0.60
D
Function
Impaired
0.85
B
Highly
Functioning
Proposed restoration
actions and management
change drives scoring
7.1 Nutrient
Enrichment/
0.60
B
Restoration score limited
by upstream conditions
1. Habitat
Connectivity
1.1 Neighboring
Wetland and
Riparian Habitat
Loss
2.3 Average
Buffer Width
D
0.85
4-3
Burns & McDonnell
Variable
Current
Condition
s
Category
PostProject
Condition
Function
Impaired
Eutrophication/
Oxygen
Category
Rationale
Highly
Functioning
7.2
Sedimentation/T
urbidity
0.69
D
Function
Impaired
0.95
A
Reference
Standard
Proposed restoration
actions and management
change drives scoring
7.3 Toxic
contamination/p
H
0.60
D
Function
Impaired
0.90
A
Reference
Standard
Proposed restoration
actions and management
change drives scoring
0.55
F
NonFunctioning
0.95
A
Reference
Standard
Proposed restoration
actions and management
change drives scoring
0.65
D
Function
Impaired
0.89
B
Highly
Functioning
Proposed restoration
actions and management
change drives scoring
0.65
D
Function
Impaired
1.00
A
Reference
Standard
Proposed restoration
actions and management
change drives scoring
7.4 Temperature
7.5 Soil
chemistry/
Redox potential
8. Vegetation
Structure and
Complexity
4.1.2
Contributions to Conservation
In addition to its wetland and riparian restoration potential, the site represents a critical component of the
larger conservation landscape in the area. The proposed bank site is recognized by the CNHP for its very
high biodiversity values. The site overlaps with the CNHP-designated Park Creek Hogback Potential
Conservation Area (site ID 520), which is ranked B2: Very High Biodiversity Significance. This is
CNHP's second highest priority level. According to CNHP, PCA 520 contains an excellent (A-ranked)
and good (B-ranked) occurrence of the Bell's twinpod, a plant species which is globally imperiled
(G2/S2). The Park Creek Hogback PCA is in the Network of Conservation Areas (NCA) site ID 456.
The proximity of the Bell's twinpod range to the rapidly developing Front Range has threatened or
degraded many occurrences. This species is restricted to certain shale or sandstone hogbacks along the
foothills of the Front Range from Jefferson County north to this site. The extent, condition, and
geographic position (the northernmost known extent of the species' range) of these occurrences indicate
this site's biodiversity significance.
The site supports a good (B-ranked) occurrence of the globally imperiled (G2G3) mountain mahoganyNew Mexico feathergrass (Cercocarpus montanus/Stipa neomexicana) plant association. The site also
appears to have occurrences of Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) and is utilized by a
4-4
Burns & McDonnell
herd of Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) for a good portion of each year. Pronghorn are declining
along the Northern Front Range and this is one of the southernmost occurrences of the species in the
region.
The creation of a mitigation bank on the site will ensure the continued success of the rare and tracked
plant communities on the site while also increasing the aquatic functions provided by Park Creek,
including but not limited to water quantity and quality maintenance, flood attenuation, sediment retention,
food web support, and habitat support for threatened, endangered and imperiled species. The site also
contains relict hydric soils (loamy aquepts, Kim loam, and Longmont clay) that very likely supported
wetland and riparian ecosystems prior to agricultural use of the land. These soils have permeability low
enough to retain standing water and remain saturated, and will be amenable to restoration techniques that
will benefit wetland hydrology and vegetation.
Park Creek Station makes an important regional contribution to all four levels of biological diversity by
directly restoring and conserving wetland, riparian, and buffer habitats. Park Creek Station is expected to
contribute to multiple levels of biological diversity across multiple scales. Contributions to diversity may
include:
·
Genetic Diversity- the genetic variation within a population and among populations of a plant or
animal species.
·
Species Diversity- the total number (richness) and abundance (evenness) of plant and animal
species and subspecies in an area.
·
Community Diversity- the variety of plant communities within an area that represent the range of
species relationships and inter-dependence.
·
Landscape Diversity- the type, condition, pattern, and connectedness of natural communities.
Human activities, whether it be habitat restoration, land management, agriculture, or infrastructure
development, are closely linked to all levels of this hierarchy, but affect the landscape in different ways.
Fragmentation of landscapes, loss of connections and migratory corridors, and loss of natural
communities all result in a loss of biological diversity for a region. While Park Creek Station will not
solve all these issues in isolation, it represents a significant contribution to the restoration and
conservation of natural communities in the region.
Park Creek Station would be expected to make contributions to improved conditions offsite too. For
example, downstream areas will likely be benefactors if habitat and water quality improvements. The
Iowa Darter, a State Species of Concern, was seined from Dry Creek by the Colorado Parks & Wildlife
4-5
Burns & McDonnell
(CPW; formerly known as Colorado Division of Wildlife) in the summer of 2008 just below the site
where Park Creek and Dry Creek meet. Since then, due to the rare quality of the streams and wetlands,
both the Endangered Northern Red Bellied Dace and the Threatened Brassy Minnow have been
reintroduced by the CPW in the wetland complex approximately ½ mile downstream from the site. All
three of these fish are species of concern.
4.2
Regulatory Benefits
Park Creek Station would be the first wetland mitigation bank in the Cache La Poudre watershed and
would provide an on-going mitigation resource for the watershed and region. Park Creek Station provides
not only an opportunity to keep mitigation in the watershed and region, it would likely lead to wellknown regulatory efficiencies such as reduced permit review times and quicker permit decisions that have
been documented on a regulatory program scale. Furthermore, we believe the proposal is consistent with
the 2008 Mitigation Rule and Regional General Condition 23. Mitigation. Subsection (e) regarding use of
riparian habitat for mitigation.
In summary, regulatory benefits of Park Creek Station include:
·
Establishment of the first wetland mitigation bank in the Cache La Poudre watershed
·
Mitigation acres for impacts in the Cache La Poudre have gone outside the watershed due to
limited compensatory mitigation options within watershed
·
Large infrastructure projects in region may require compensatory mitigation
·
Fort Collins, Greely, and other Northern Colorado cities and towns continue to grow and expand
in population requiring additional housing and associated infrastructure projects and potential
mitigation needs.
4.3
Economic Benefits
The South Platte basin is experiencing rapid population growth and development. Pressures on natural
resources are being applied by population growth, transportation development, oil and gas development,
renewable energy development, and new water developments. It is expected that almost one million
people will move into the South Platte basin in the next ten years, placing tremendous pressures on the
aquatic resources and habitat in the basin.
The lower Cache la Poudre watershed within the South Platte basin will host around 13% of Colorado's
burgeoning population by 2050 in and around the cities of Fort Collins and Greeley. In addition, there are
4-6
Burns & McDonnell
plans to enlarge two reservoirs-the Halligan and Milton Seaman-and create the new Glade Reservoir
within the watershed in the coming years.
However, no wetland banks currently exist in the watershed, leaving mitigation for unavoidable impacts
with few options. The proposed bank would be capable of offsetting impacts within the watershed in a
large, sustainable riparian-wetland complex in an area with outstanding conservation value.
Mitigation bank credits are a cost-effective and dependable way for permittees to offset their impacts. In
purchasing mitigation credits from an approved bank, permittees sever their liability for the mitigation
and the bank sponsor assumes the risk for ecological and other risks under the terms of the mitigation
instrument. Purchasing mitigation bank credits as opposed to permittee-responsible mitigation has been
documented to reduce permitting times saving time and money.
The project is expected to make important economic contributions to local services and products. The
Bank Sponsor anticipates contracting local expertise in biology, restoration ecology, native plant
procurement, installation, maintenance, and sales and marketing. Colorado specific firms and individuals
can send materials to the address for the Bank Sponsor contact in Section 1.1.1.
4-7
Burns & McDonnell
5.0
BANK CREDITING AND CREDIT TRANSFERS
The following credit generation system is proposed. We placed mitigation strategies into functional
restoration categories and assigned conversion ratios considering jurisdictional status, ecological value,
and restoration effort. Park Creek Station is proposed to generate 148.6 wetland credits from 505 acres of
restored and managed natural habitats (Table 5-1).
Table 5-1: Park Creek Station Wetland Mitigation Bank Proposed Credit Table with Categorization
and Conversion of Mitigation strategies
Combined
Acreage
Conversion
Ratio
Mitigation
Credits
Generated
Percent
Credit
Total
Riparian/Wetland Rehabilitation,
Wetland Rehabilitation, and
Seasonal Wetland Establishment
57.5
1:1
57.5
39%
Riparian
Restoration and
Establishment
Riparian Woodland Restoration,
Riparian Woodland
Enhancement, and Riparian
Woodland Establishment
52.7
2:1
26.3
18%
Priority Buffers
Wetland Buffer, Stream Buffer,
and Tier 1 Buffer
253.5
5:1
50.7
34%
Additional
High-Quality
Buffers
Tier 2 and Tier 3 Buffers
141.3
10:1
14.1
9%
505.0
-
148.6
100%
Restoration
Category
Mitigation strategies
Wetland
Restoration and
Establishment
Total
The Bank Sponsor proposes the following Credit Release Schedule:
·
25% release upon bank establishment date
·
25% release upon completion of construction and 25% of the endowment amount funded
·
30% release when year 3 performance standards met and endowment amount 70% funded
·
20% release when year 5 performance standards met and endowment amount 100% funded
Bank establishment includes a fully executed BEI, recorded conservation easement, and posted financial
assurances. Completion of construction includes the submittal of as-built drawings, with accurate maps of
the constructed habitats, and will describe in detail any deviation from the Development Plan in the BEI.
The third and fourth credit release is also contingent upon the Bank Sponsor's submission of the annual
report for the current reporting period.
5-1
Burns & McDonnell
6.0
PROPOSED SERVICE AREAS
The Bank as proposed generates 148.6 wetland credits as described in Chapter 5. These credits would be
available to the regulated public for purchase to offset stream and wetland impacts in the service areas
described below and shown on Figure 6-1.
The proposed primary service area is the Cache La Poudre HUC 8 (HUC 10190007), the Big Thompson
HUC 8 (HUC 10190006), St. Vrain HUC 8 (HUC 10190005), Lone Tree-Owl HUC 8 (HUC 10190008),
Crow HUC 8 (HUC 10190009), Pawnee HUC 8 (HUC 10190014), Middle South Platte-Sterling HUC 8
(HUC 10190012), the Little Dry Creek-South Platte River HUC 10 (HUC 1019000306), Outlet Box Elder
Creek River HUC 10 (HUC 1019000308), Sanborn Draw-South Platte River HUC 10 (HUC
1019000310), Greasewood Draw-South Platte River HUC 10 (HUC 1019000311), and the Cottonwood
Draw-South Platte River HUC 10 (HUC 1019000312). The landscapes within the primary service area
shares similar characteristics, climate, soil types, vegetation and wildlife, special status species and
critical habitats. There are several infrastructure and private development projects in the planning stages
within this proposed service area which could benefit from the use of Park Creek Station credits.
The proposed secondary service area is the remaining HUC 6 outside the primary service area inside
Colorado. Conditions for use will be presented in the BEI.
Permittees with impacts in the primary service area will be able to offset jurisdictional and other wetland
and stream impacts at Park Creek Station to fulfill the compensatory mitigation requirements of their
Department of the Army Permits, Permissions, and Enforcement Actions. State and local regulatory
requirements may be met in accordance with agency conditions. Regardless of source of sale all credits
sold are deducted from the credit ledger.
6-2
Burns & McDonnell
WYOMING
rth
Pla
tte
Riv
NEBRASKA
er
25
r
80
th
Pl
at
te
Ri
ve
Cache La P
ou
dre
Ri v
er
Fort Collins
Greeley
So
u
Path: Z:\General\KCM\ESP\Marketing\Bus_Dev\MitBanking\Colorado\Park Creek Station\3 Tech Studies\Geospatial\DataFiles\ArcDocs\MitigationBankProspectus\PC_6-1ServiceArea.mxd ajreither 9/9/2017
COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2014 Esri
No
76
Boulder
Denver
70
COLORADO
70
Colorado
Springs
KANSAS
25
Arkansas River
NORTH
40
20
0
40
Scale in Miles
Park Creek Mitigation Bank
City
State
Primary Service Area
County
Secondary Service Area:
South Platte HUC 6
(101900)
Major Highways
Major River
Source: Esri; and Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
Figure 6-1
Primary Service Area Map
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Larimer County, Colorado
Issued: 9/9/2017
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
7.0
References
REFERENCES
Ancestory.com. 2017. George W. Pollock. Electronic database. http://Ancestory.com, accessed April 28,
2017.
Anderson, J.L., L.C. Todd, G.R. Burgett, and D.J. Rapson. 1994. Archaeological Investigations at the
Massey Draw Site (5JF339): Archaic Occupations along the Rocky Mountain Front Range,
Jefferson County, Colorado. Colorado Department of Transportation Archaeological Research
Series, No. 3. Denver. Ancestory.com 2017)
Batchelor, J.L, Ripple, W.J., Wilson, T.M., and Painter, L.E. (2015). Restoration of Riparian Areas
Following the Removal of Cattle in the Northwestern Great Basin. Environmental Management
55:930-942.
Bohn, C.C. and Buckhouse, J.C. (1985). Some Responses of Riparian Soils to Grazing Management in
Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 38(4):378-381.
Booth, D.T., Cox, S.E, Simonds, G.; Sant E.D. (2012). Willow Cover as a Stream-Recovery Indicator
Under a Conservation Grazing Plan. Ecol. Indic. 18:512-519.
Brookshire, E.N.J., Kauffman, J.B., Lytjen, D., and Otting, N. (2002). Cumulative Effects of Wild
Ungulate and Livestock Herbivory on Riparian Willows. Oecologia 132:559-566.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2017. Search Land Patents in General Land Office Records
website. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Electronic database,
http://glorecords.blm.gov, accessed April 28, 2017.
Butler, W.B. 1992. Bison Presence and Absence in Colorado. Southwestern Lore 58(3):1-14.
------. 1997. Cultural and Climatic Patterns in the Faunal Record from Western Plains Archaeological
Sites. Southwestern Lore 64(4):1-36.
Case, R.L. and Kaufman, J.B. (1997). Wild Ungulate Influences on the Recovery of Willows, Black
Cottonwood and Thinleaf Alder Following Cessation of Cattle Grazing in Northeastern Oregon.
Northwest Science 71(2):115-126.
Cassells, E. S. 1990. The Archaeology of Colorado. Johnson Books, Boulder, Colorado.
City of Boulder, Colorado. 2017. Prairie dogs on OSMP. Available at
https://bouldercolorado.gob/osmp/prairie-dogs-on-osmp. Access January 2017.
Clary, W.P. (1999). Stream Channel and Vegetation Responses to Late Spring Cattle Grazing. Journal of
Range Management 52(3):218-227.
Collins, C.D. 2006. Atlas of the Sioux Wars. Combat Studies Institute Press, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
Coles-Richie, M.C., Roberts, D.W., Kershner, J.L., and Henderson, R.C. (2007). Use of a Wetland Index
to Evaluate Changes in Riparian Vegetation After Livestock Exclusion. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 43(3):731-743.
7-1
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
References
Colorado Encyclopedia 2017. History of Denver, Laramie, and Northwestern Railroad. Electronic
document, http://coloradoencyclopedia.org, accessed May 1, 2017.
Colorado Natural Areas Program, Colorado State Parks, and Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
1998. Native Plant Revegetation Guide for Colorado. Caring for the Land Series, Volume III.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2013. Colorado Rare Plant Guide. Available at
http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/projects/rareplants/list.asp?list=master. Accessed
December 2016.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2016. Threatened and Endangered List. Available at
http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SpeciesProfiles.aspx. Accessed December 2016.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2015a. Black-tailed Prairie Dog. Available at
http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-Black-tailedPrairieDog.aspx. Accessed January 2017.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2015b. State Wildlife Action Plan. Available at
http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/SWAP/CO_SWAP_FULLVERSION.pdf.
Accessed January 2017.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 2011. Statewide Strategies for Wetland and Riparian Conservation.
Strategic Plan for the Wetland Wildlife Conservation Program.
Crockett A.B. Peaks Plateaus and Plains: The Ecology of Colorado. CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform, 1 edition (August 24, 2016).
Culver, R and Lemly, J. 2013. Field Guide to Colorado's Wetland Plants. Available at
http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/cwic/documents/WetlandPlantsOfColorado_P1.pdf. Accessed
January 2017.
Dobkin, D.S., Rich, A.C., and Pyle, W.H. (1998). Habitat and Avifaunal Recovery from Livestock
Grazing in a Riparian Meadow System of the Northwestern Great Basin. Conservation Biology
12(1):209-221.
Environmental Data Resources Inc., Certified Sanborn Map Report, Property, Waverly, 2800 Owl
Canyon Road Fort Collins, CO 80524, Inquiry No. 4778592.3, November 10, 2016.
Environmental Data Resources Inc., The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, Waverly, 2800 Owl
Canyon Road Fort Collins, CO 80524, Inquiry No. 4778592.9, November 15, 2016.
Environmental Data Resources Inc., The EDR City-Directory Abstract, Waverly, 2800 Owl Canyon Road
Fort Collins, CO 80524, Inquiry No. 4778592.5, November 29, 2016.
Environmental Data Resources Inc., EDR Environmental Lien and AUL Search, Waverly, 2800 Owl
Canyon Road Fort Collins, CO 80524, Inquiry No. 4778592.11, November 13, 2016.
Environmental Data Resources Inc., EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, Waverly, 2800 Owl
Canyon Road Fort Collins, CO 80524, Inquiry No. 4778592.4, November 10, 2016.
Environmental Data Resources Inc., The EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, Waverly, 2800 Owl
Canyon Road Fort Collins, CO 80524, Inquiry No. 4778592.2s, November 10, 2016.
7-2
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
References
Environmental Data Resources Inc., The EDR Vapor Encroachment Screen Report, Waverly, 2800 Owl
Canyon Road Fort Collins, CO 80524, Inquiry No. 4778592.6s, November 17, 2016.
Fowler, L. 1982. Arapahoe Politics, 1851-1978: Symbols in Crises of Authority. University of Nebraska
Press, Lincoln.
Frison, G.C. 1975. Man's Interaction with Holocene Environments on the Plains. Quaternary Research
5:289-300.
------. 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the Great Plains. Second Edition, Academic Press, New York.
Gillihan, S. W., D. J. Hanni, S. W. Hutchings, T. Toombs, and T. VerCauteren. 2001. Sharing your land
with shortgrass prairie birds. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory; 36 p. USDA Forest Service
Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191. 2005
Gilmore, K.P., J.E. Ayres, M.L Chenault, and B.J. Clark 1997. Culture History of the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal. In Archaeological Investigations and Cultural Resources Management Plant for the
Archaeological Resources of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Adams County, Colorado. Edited by
B.J. Clark, pp. 26-48. SWCA Archeological Report no. 96-110, SWCA, Inc., Denver.
Grady, J. 1984. Northwest Colorado Prehistoric Context. Colorado Historical Society, Denver.
Green, D.M. and Kauffman, J.B. (1995). Succession and Livestock Grazing in a Northeastern Oregon
Riparian Ecosystem. Journal of Range Management 48:307-313.
Greene, J.A. 2004. Washita, the Southern Cheyenne and the U.S. Army. In Campaigns and Commanders
Series, Vol. 3. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Greiser, S.T. 1980. Predictive Models of the Hunter-Gather Subsistence and Settlement of the Central
High Plains. Ph.D. dissertation University of Colorado, Boulder.
Haynes, C.V., Jr. 1966. Elephant Hunting in North America. Scientific American. June:345-352.
Hoig, S. 2005. The Sand Creek Massacre. University of Oklahoma, Norman.
Holland, K.A., Leininger, W.C, and Trilica, M.J. 2005. Grazing History Affects Willow Communities in
a Montane Riparian Ecosystem. Rangeland Ecology & Management 58:148-154.
Hough-Snee, N., B.B. Roper, J.M. Wheaton, P. Budy and R.L. Lokteff. 2013. Riparian vegetation
communities change rapidly following passive restoration at a northern Utah stream. Ecological
Engineering 58: 371-377. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.07.042
Hubert, W.A., Lanka, R.P. Wesche T.A., and Stabler, F. (1985). Grazing Management Influences on Two
Brook Trout Streams in Wyoming. In: Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling
Conflicting Uses, Johnson, R.R., Ziebell, C.D., Patton, D.R., Folliott, P.F., and Hamre R.H.
(Editors). USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-120, Fort Collins, Colorado, pp. 290-294.
Johnson, J. B. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic Wetland Profiling: An Approach to Landscape and Cumulative
Impact Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/620/R-05/001
(NTIS PB2007-107854)
7-3
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
References
Kappler, C.J. (Compiler and editor). 1904. Treaty with the Sioux-Brulé, Oglala, Miniconjou, Yakatonai,
Hunkpapa, Blackfeet, Cuthead, Two Kettle, San Arcs, and Santee and Arapaho, 1868 (Treaty of
Fort Laramie, 1868). 15 Stat.635, April 29, 1868. Ratified February 16, 1868; proclaimed
February 24, 1868. In Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Vol, II: Treaties. Pp. 998-1007. US
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Kauffman, J.B., Krueger, W.C., Vavra, M., 1983. Effects of late season cattle grazing on riparian plant
communities. Journal of Range Management 36, 685691.
Kentula, M.E. 2000. Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration. Ecological
Engineering 15: 199-209.
Knopf. F.L. 1985. Significance of Riparian Vegetation to Breeding Birds Across an Altitudinal Dine.
Pages 105-111 in Johnson, R.R., Ziebell, C.D., Patten, D.R., Folliot, P.F., and Hamre, R.H.,
technical coordinators. Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting
Uses. General Technical Report RM-120. U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Knopf, F.L. 1986. Changing Landscapes and the Cosmopolitism of the Eastern Colorado Avifauna.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:132-142.
Knopf, F.L. Sedgwick, J.A, and Cannon, R.W. 1988. Guild Structures of a Riparian Avifauna Relative to
Seasonal Cattle Grazing. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:280-290.
Samson, F.B. 1996. Scale perspectives on avian diversity in western riparian systems. In F. B. Samson et
al., Ecosystem Management. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
Krausman, P.R. 1996. Rangeland Wildlife. Society of Range Management.
Krausman, P.R. 1999. Some Basic Principles of Habitat Use. In Grazing Behavior of Livestock and
Wildlife. Idaho Forest, Wildlife & Range Exp. Sta. Bull. #70 Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Editors: K.L. Launchbaugh, K.D. Sanders, J.C. Mosley.
Lockhard, B., C. Serr, B. Schreiver, and B. Lindsey. 2013. The Glass Factory and Bottles of Alexander
and David H. Chambers. Society of Historic Archaeology.
Lohman, K., 2004. Wildlife Use of Riverine Wetland Habitats. In: Wetland and Riparian Areas of the
Intermountain West: Ecology and Management, M.C. McKinstry, W.A. Hubert, and S.H.
Anderson (Editors). University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, pp. 74-86.
Leege, T.A., Herman, D.J., and Zamora B. (1981). Effects of Cattle Grazing on Mountain Meadows in
Idaho. Journal of Range Management 34:324-328.
Magilligan, F.J. and McDowell, P.F. (1997). Stream Channel Adjustments Following Elimination of
Cattle Grazing. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33(4):867-878.
McDonald, R., Gann, G.D, and Dixon, K.W. 2016. International Standards for the Practice of Ecological
Restoration Including Principles and Key Concepts. Society for Ecological Restoration.
Washington, D.C.
7-4
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
References
Michlovic, M.G. 1986. Cultural Evolutionism and Plains Archaeology. Plains Anthropologist 3(113):207218.
Mitsch, W.J. and R.F. Wilson. 1996. Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with
know-how, time, and self-design. Ecological Applications 6(1): 77-83.
Mitsch, William J., Xinyuan Wu, Robert W. Nairn, Paul E. Weihe, Naiming Wang, Robert Deal, and
Charles E. Boucher. 1998. Creating and restoring wetlands: A whole-ecosystem experiment in
self-design. Bioscience 48(12): 1019-1030.
Morris, A.J., A. Briggs-Ahlbandt, and K. Stieban. 1985. History of Larimer County. Curtis Media
Corporation, Dallas, Texas.
Myers, T.J., and Swanson, S. (1995). Impact of Deferred Rotation Grazing on Stream Characteristics in
Central Nevada: A Case Study. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15:428-439.
Nature Serve Explorer. 2015. An online Encyclopedia of Life. Available at
http://explorer.natureserve.org/. Accessed December 2016. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
2015. All about Birds. Available at https://www.allaboutbirds.org/. Accessed December 2016.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (2017). Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved July 2017 from
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC). 2017. History. Electronic document, http://NPICWater/NPICHistory/, accessed May 1, 2017.
Platts, W.S. 1981. Sheep and Streams. Rangelands 3(4):158-160.
Reed, A. D. and Metcalf, M. D. 1999. Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River
Basin. Metcalf Archaeological Consultants Inc., Eagle, Colorado.
Rowe, R.A. 2002. Kennedy Oil Company Northern and Central Sweetwater Federal Coal Bed Methane
Wells, Access Roads, and Utility Corridors., A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory,
Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Greystone Project 2002-146, Greenwood Village, Colorado.
------. 2014. The Geomorphology of the "Four Sites" Area along the South Platte in Northern Colorado.
Presented at the 79th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin, Texas.
Saab, V.A., C.E. Bock, T.E. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin, 1995. Livestock Grazing Effects in Western North
America. In: Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds: A Synthesis and Review
of Critical Issues, T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch (Editors). Oxford University Press, New York, pp.
311-353.
Sarr, D.A. 2002. Riparian Livestock Exclosure Research in the Western United States: a Critique and
Some Recommendations. Environmental Management 30:516-526.
Schultz, T.T. and Leininger, W.C. (1990). Differences in Riparian Vegetation Structure Between Grazed
and Exclosures. Journal of Range Management 43(4):295-299.
Scott, J. 1995. On the Santa Fe Trail. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
7-5
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
References
Sebastian, L., and S. Larralde 1989. Living on the Land: 11,000 years of Human Adaptation in
Southeastern New Mexico. Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, Cultural
Resources Series No. 6. Santa Fe.
Secoy, F.R. 1953. Changing Military Patterns on the Great Plains 17th Century Through Early 19th
Century. Monographs of the American Ethnological Society No. 21. J.J. Augustin Publisher,
Locust Valley, New York.
Shimkin, D.B. 1986. Eastern Shoshone. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 308335.
Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Smiley, B. 2010. Sand Creek Massacre. Archeology. Archaeological Institute of America. Electronic
document, http://archive.archaeology.org/9911/newsbriefs/sand.html accessed April 14, 2016.
Stenger, A.T. 2013. Pre-Clovis in the Americas: Characterizing Early Sites, Material Cultural, and
Origins. In Pre-Clovis in the Americas. International Science Conference Proceedings.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Stuber, R.J. 1985. Trout Habitat, Abundance, and Fishing Opportunities in Fenced vs Unfenced Riparian
Habitat Along Sheep Creek, Colorado. In Proceedings of the First North American Riparian
Conference. Tucson, Arizona, April 16-18, 1985.
Szaro, R. C., and M. D. Jakle. 1985. Avian use of a desert riparian island and its adjacent scrub habitat.
Condor 87:511-519.
Taylor, D.M. 1986. Effects of Cattle Grazing on Passerine Birds Nesting in Riparian Habitat. Journal of
Range Management 39:254-258.
Trimble, S.W. and Mendel, A.C. 1995. The Cow as a Geomorphic Agent a Critical Review.
Geomorphology 13:233-253.
Tweto, O. 1979. Geologic Map of Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Special Geologic Map, scale
1:500,000.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (1987). Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Technical
Report Y-87-1.
------. (2010). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great
Plains Region (Version 2.0). Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Corps of Engineers Research and
Development Center, ERDC/EL TR-10-1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2016). Colorado Ecoregions. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecoregion-download-files-state-region-8#pane-05. Accessed
June 2017.
EPA My Property Info site: http://www.epa.gov/environ/html/fii/myproperty/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Recovery Plan,
Colorado. Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado. (Draft).
7-6
Burns & McDonnell
Park Creek Station Mitigation Bank Prospectus
References
USFWS. 2017. National Wetland Inventory. Retrieved April 2017 from: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
Verner, J. 1984. The guild concept applied to management of bird populations. Environmental
Management 8:1-14
Watrous, W. 1911. History of Larimer County. Cache la Poudre Chapter, Daughters of the American
Revolution. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2017. Buckhorn Mtn 1 E, Colorado (051060). Available at
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?co1060. Accessed January 2017.
Wheeler, M.A., Trlica, M.J., Frasier, G.W., and Reeder, J.D. (2002). Seasonal Grazing Affects Soil
Physical Properties of a Montane Riparian Community. Journal of Range Management 55:49-56.
7-7
Burns & McDonnell
APPENDIX- PHOTOGRAPHS
Photopoint 1: On October 24, 1863, Ben Holladay secured a $500.00 lease for a
station for the Overland Stage Company on the "new" South Platte route.
Holladay named the property Park Creek Station.
Photopoint 2: Cattle grazing is intense throughout the site and it is the primary
stressor directly and indirectly affecting the extent, structure, and function of
stream, wetland, and riparian habitat onsite.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 3: Current and historic grazing practices have negatively impacted
riparian and wetland vegetation cover, composition, and structure adjacent to
Park Creek. Occasional legacy willows are all that remain of historic habitats.
Photopoint 4: Willow germination or clonal spreading is observed throughout
the site, but establishment is almost entirely absent due to observable evidence
of pervasive herbivory in wetlands and riparian areas.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 5: Streambanks, wetlands, and adjacent riparian areas are also
directly impacted by trampling and pugging leading to bank erosion, poor water
quality, and the loss of vegetation structure and characteristic flora and fauna.
Photopoint 6: Cattle have been directly and indirectly contributing to reduced
water quality, and direct and indirect impacts to riparian and stream structure
and function. The site needs active restoration to repair ecosystems.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 7: The degraded streambanks and adjacent degraded wetlands.
riparian woodlands, and buffers offer excellent restoration potential along the
northern reach of Park Creek.
Photopoint 8: The stream is visibly degraded but has adjacent seeps and riparian
woodland on the northeast banks and a restorable slope wetland complex
draining from the west, visible as dark green band in distance on right.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 9: Woodland and scrub elements have been drastically reduced or
completely removed from the Park Creek system. Active restoration will restore
these structural elements to the Park Creek system.
Photopoint 10: There are small and occasional simplified and species poor
riparian wetlands in the creek and on the adjacent terraces demonstrating the
Park Creek system can support these habitat types.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 11: The confluence of Park Creek and the slope wetland complex
draining from the west. Noxious weeds such as Russian olive shown here will be
removed and managed as part of the active restoration actions.
Photopoint 12: The southern portions of the creek have lower, steeper banks
and generally wider floodplain than the northern reach. Adjacent Riparian
Woodland Restoration opportunities are narrower along the southern reach.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 13: The wider, flatter southern reach likely receives disproportionate
grazing pressure resulting in a large amount of bare ground in the floodplains
adjacent to the creek.
Photopoint 14: Park Creek flowing across the southern boundary of the property.
The alkali playa complex visible the distance on the right. Bare ground adjacent
to stream is common along entire 1.25 mile Park Creek system.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 15: The current degraded condition of the Riparian Woodland
Restoration area adjacent to Park Creek in the northeast. Decompaction and
minor earthwork followed by active planting will occur in this area.
Photopoint 16: Current access road looking south with existing riparian
woodland on the left and Park Creek system on the right. Access road may be
kept in place or relocated in detailed designs.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 17: Looking west across the southern reach of Park Creek with
current grazed conditions within the proposed Riparian Woodland Restoration
area along Park Creek.
Photopoint 18: Intensely grazed and denuded southern terminus of onsite reaches
and adjacent terraces of Park Creek.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 19: Bank Design provides maximum habitat interspersion along
Park Creek after installation of multiple hydrogeomorphic and habitat types in
proposed Rehabilitation, Restoration, Enhancement, and Establishment areas.
Photopoint 20: Looking south toward PP-21across the interconnected Riparian
Woodland Restoration and Establishment, and Seasonal Wetland Establishment
areas taken from edge of the existing riparian woodland.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 21: Looking across boundary of proposed Seasonal Wetland and
Riparian Woodland Establishment areas toward existing riparian woodland.
Existing wet meadow may be visible in the far right background.
Photopoint 22: Looking southeast toward PP-23 across future interconnected
Riparian Woodland Restoration and Establishment, and Seasonal Wetland
Establishment areas taken from edge of the existing riparian woodland.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 23: Outflow side of MN_01 gate on main A ditch.
Photopoint 24: Intake pipe and gate of MN_01 on main Ditch A. Senior water
rights and history of successful deliveries strongly suggests simple but effective
distribution system is reliable in current condition and configuration.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 25: Photo taken standing on main A ditch at MN_01 looking south
to property. The current system is operational for long-term and consistent
delivery; improvements or relocation along main A may occur.
Photopoint 26: Onsite ditch. Note existing riparian woodland to left and Park
Creek trees on right in distance. Bare ground in proposed Riparian Woodland
Restoration area is visible adjacent to Park Creek. Hogbacks in distance.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 27: The alkali playa complex looking south from the Upper#1
Ditch. Passive and active restoration measures will be taken in Wetland
Rehabilitation areas.
Photopoint 28: The alkali playa complex contains unique wetland plants
adapted to alkaline soil conditions. Cattle impacts are severe and the
restoration opportunities unique.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 29: Looking northwest across slope wetland complex. Note willows
trying to establish at margins upslope. Low species diversity as a result of land
use characterizes the Wetland Restoration and Wetland Buffer baseline.
Photopoint 30: Looking east to confluence with Park Creek. Limited willow
recruitment visible along proposed Wetland Buffer and Riparian Woodland
Restoration boundaries on left. Upland Buffer on right needs active restoration.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 31: Current and historic grazing has led to a dominance of increaser
species and a decline of native species diversity resulting in low species richness,
low species evenness, and a greater presence of nonnative species.
Photopoint 32: Looking north across simplified existing wetland system. Note
Riparian Woodland on the left. Adjacent Seasonal Wetland Establishment would
increase wetland extent and provide needed native species diversity to the site.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Photopoint 33: The unnamed stream that the Seasonal Wetland Establishment
connects with has wetter reaches where groundwater discharges along the
eastern valley edge resulting in the potential for high native diversity.
Photopoint 34: Lower portions of jurisdictional unnamed stream also show
potential for improvement of existing conditions. This low order stream is a
tributary to Park Creek and originates onsite.
Park Creek Station
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Prospectus
Photographs
Burns & McDonnell
9785 Maroon Circle, Suite 400
Centennial, CO 80112
O 303-721-9292
F 303-721-0563
www.burnsmcd.com