HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.10 Integrated veg and noxious weed mgmt planChevron — Tom Creek
Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan
Garfield County, Colorado
Looking north along Tom Creek drainage
Prepared for:
Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company
Prepared by:
WestWater Engineering
2516 Foresight Circle #1
Grand Junction, CO 81505
April 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company (Chevron) is planning a series of
projects in the Clear Creek / Tom Creek drainages in Garfield County, approximately 17 miles
northwest of Parachute, Colorado. These projects include existing and proposed well pads, a
central production facility site, fresh water and produced water ponds, and pipeline alignments.
The project area referred to in this report is approximately 400 acres in size (Figure 1).
2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING
2.1 Terrain and Vegetation Communities
The terrain ranges from very steep mountain side - slopes to gently sloping valley bottoms
(Appendix C. Photos 2 and 3). Elevations in the project area range from 6,850 feet in the Tom
Creek drainage to 5,950 feet in the Clear Creek bottom land.
The predominant vegetation community in the northern Tom Creek drainage bottom is mountain
boxelder (Acer negundo), scattered Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), redosier dogwood
(Cornus sericea), mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. vaseyana), and
oakbrush (Quercus gambelii). The mountain side -slope vegetation includes mountain big sage,
Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp. wyomingensis), Utah serviceberry
(Amelanchier utahensis), oakbrush, and Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides). The
mountain side - slopes also contain barren areas of steep shale talus, which supports small
populations of sun - loving meadowrue (Thalictrum heliophilum).
Vegetation in the Potts Creek drainage and the Toni Creek drainage south of the Potts Creek
confluence are similar. Mountain boxelder and narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia)
are common trees. Shrubs are dominated by basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt. ssp.
tridentata) and Wyoming big sagebrush, although some mountain big sagebrush is also found.
Vegetation on the steep side - slopes is mountain big sagebrush, oakbrush, Utah serviceberry, and
often thick Indian ricegrass. The mountain side - slopes also contain barren areas of steep shale
talus, which support small populations of sun - loving meadowrue and Roan Cliffs blazingstar
(Mentzelia rhizomata).
Along Clear Creek the dominant trees are boxelder, New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana)
and narrow leaf cottonwood. Basin big sagebrush is the predominant shrub along with various
(often weedy) forbs and grasses. The vegetation on the east - facing side -slope of Clear Creek
drainage consists of very thick Utah serviceberry, scattered oakbrush, and abundant creeping
barberry (Mahonia repens). Vegetation on the drier west - facing slope includes Utah juniper
(Juniperus osteosperma), shadscale saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia), Osterhout's penstemon
(Penstemon osterhoutii), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), basin big sagebrush and
Indian ricegrass.
2.2 Soil Types
The Chevron Clear Creek / Tom Creek Weed Survey project area includes just three main types
of soil. The northerly portion of the project area includes part of the Tom Creek drainage and the
WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 14 4/21/2008
rti
Legend
4 Weed Patches
Infested Areas
TARA
VETH, CYOF
VETH, CYOF. BRTE
VEIN, CYOF. CANU
Weed Survey Area
n BLNY
Figure 1:
Chevron Clear Creek
Tom Creek IVNWMP
Westwater Engineering
March 2008
lower end of the Potts Creek drainage in Sections 24 and 25, T.5 S., R.98 W. This portion of the
survey area lies entirely on Grobutte very channery loam, 30 -60% slopes. The Grobutte soil
formed on mountain sides and hills from mixed colluvium parent material. Characteristic native
vegetation is Wyoming big sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), needle
and thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), and Indian ricegrass.
South of Section 25, the Tom Creek drainage broadens and the terrain becomes less steep along
the creek. The soil here consists of Happle very channery sandy loam, 12 -25% slopes. The
Happle soil formed on toeslopes and alluvial fans from Green River formation alluvium or
colluvium. Characteristic native vegetation on the Happle soil is Wyoming big sagebrush,
bluebunch wheatgrass, needle and thread grass, and Indian ricegrass. The steeper areas on either
side of Tom Creek are on Grobutte soil as described above.
The southern portion of the project area includes short stretches of Clear Creek drainage both
above and below the confluence with Tom Creek. The very steep areas lie on Grobutte soil.
Gentler slopes near Clear Creek consist of the Happle soil. The almost level flood plain of Clear
Creek lies on Cumulic Haploboroll, 1 -3% slopes. The Cumulic Haploboroll formed from
Wasatch shale or Green River shale alluvium and has a thickened surface horizon from material
added during seasonal flooding. Vegetation observed on the Cumulic Haploboroll soil is
primarily mountain boxelder and introduced and naturalized New Mexico locust. The New
Mexico locust has crowded out most native shrubs one would expect such as skunkbush sumac
(Rhus trilobata) and willows (Salix spp.), see Appendix C, Photo 4.
3.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS
Noxious weeds are plants that are not native to an area. Most have come from Europe or Asia,
either accidentally or as ornamentals that have escaped. Once established in a new environment
they tend to spread quickly since insects, diseases and animals that normally control them are
absent. Noxious weeds are spread by man, animals, water, and wind. Prime locations for the
establishment of noxious weeds include roadsides, sites cleared for construction, areas that are
overused by animals or humans, wetlands, and riparian corridors. Subsequent to soil
disturbances, vegetation communities can be susceptible to infestations of invasive or exotic
weed species. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction can create optimal
conditions for the establishment of invasive, non - native species. Construction equipment
traveling from weed- infested areas into weed -free areas could disperse noxious or invasive weed
seeds and propagates, resulting in the establishment of these weeds in previously weed -free areas
(Photo 1).
The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (State of Colorado 2005) requires local governing bodies to
develop noxious weed management plans. Both the State of Colorado and Garfield County
(Garfield County Vegetation Management and Garfield County Weed Advisory Board
2002)maintain a list of plants that are considered to be noxious weeds. The State of Colorado
noxious weed list includes three categories. List A species must be eradicated whenever
detected (none were found). List B species include weeds whose spread should be halted (4
species found). List C species are widespread, but the State will assist local jurisdictions which
choose to manage those weeds (2 species found).
WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 14 4/21/2008
Photo 1. Potential weed vector — accumulated soil on equipment
The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has compiled a list of 21 plants from the State list
considered to be noxious weeds within the county (see Appendix A). Three of those weed
species were found in, or near, the project area. The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has
duties to:
1) develop a noxious weed list;
2) develop a weed management plan for designated noxious weeds; and
3) recommend to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) that identified
landowners submit an integrated weed management plan for their properties.
3.1 Survey Methods
Mapped soil types, as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), were reviewed to determine the soil types and vegetation
characteristics of the plant site and surrounding property (NRCS 2008).
A field inspection of the project area was conducted by WestWater Engineering (WWE)
biologists on April 1, 3, 11, and 15, 2008. WWE biologists surveyed the area to identify
vegetation communities and to search for, identify, and map noxious weed species.
Vegetation types were determined through field identification of plants, aerial photography, and
on- the - ground assessments of plant abundance visible during the survey. Identification of plant
species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Whitson et al. 2001, CWMA 2007,
Kershaw et al. 1998, Weber 2001). Photographs were taken of the general project location,
vegetation, terrain, and other specific biological findings and can be found in Appendix C.
Locations of weeds and other features included in this report were recorded with the aid of a
handheld global positioning system instrument (GPS) using NAD83 /WGS84 map datum, with
all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system in
Zone 12S.
WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 14 4/21/2008
3.2 Observations
The most prevalent listed weeds were common mullein, musk thistle, houndstongue, and downy
brome. A problematic (but not listed) weed found in the project area was purple mustard
(Chorispora tenella). It was found primarily in disturbed areas and abandoned fields. See Table
1 for the general location of listed weeds. Specific UTM coordinates of weeds can be found in
Appendix B.
Table I. Observed Noxious Weed Locations in the Project Area
Common;Name*
Scientific sa le
USDA Symbol
General Location end Comments %
Bull Thistlea
Cirsium vulgare
CIVU
Very thinly scattered in the Tom Creek drainage bottom.
Common Mullein`
Verbascum thapsus
VETH
Very common from dry hillsides to valley bottoms. Scattered thinly on dry
mountainsides and occasionally found in thick infestations, especially
along riparian areas. See Appendix C, Photo 5.
Downy Brame'
Bromus tectorum
BRTE
Also known as cheatgrass. Can be found throughout much of the project
area. Scattered very thinly on steeper mountain side- slopes. Some
bottomland in CIear Creek and near the mouth of Tom Creek has denser
infestations.
Houndstonguea
Cynoglossum officinale
CYOF
Thinly scattered on dry hillsides but can be found in consistently higher
concentrations in drainage bottoms. See Appendix C, Photo 6.
Musk Thistle'
Carduus nutans
CANU
Scattered among common mullein in lower Tom Creek and in Clear Creek
drainages. A few isolated small clusters were found in drier sites.
Tamarisk$
Tamarix sp.
TARA
Also called Salt Cedar. Common along Clear Creek.
* Government weed listing: Bold - Garfield County, Colorado. Superscript - Colorado State B or C list.
3.3 Treatment and Control of Noxious Weed Infestations
Invasive and noxious weeds commonly occur along ditches, creek corridors and adjacent
drainages, especially along riparian areas, pipeline routes, disturbed areas such as well pads, and
roadsides, and abandoned fields. Areas near Clear Creek and Tom Creek were frequently noted
to have infestations of common mullein and houndstongue.
Three weed species from the Garfield County list were found in the project area and are
indicated by bold type in Table 2. Included in Table 2 are weed life cycle type, state listing
category, and recommended control methods for each weed species. Those in regular type were
also observed during the survey and are listed by the State of Colorado as noted (CWMA 2007).
The locations of these weeds were plotted on the project map (Figure 1). Except for a dense
infestation on the east side of CIear Creek, south of the confluence of Tom Creek, downy brome
was not plotted as it is very widespread throughout the area.
WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 14 4/21/2008
Table 2. Weed Control Methods
Common Name*
Scientific Name
USDA Symbol
Type **
Control Methods
Bull Thistle'
Cirsium vulgare
CIVU
B/A
Tilling or, because of the small number of plants, hand
grubbing in the rosette stage. Mow at bolting or early
flowering; Cut and bag mature seed heads. Herbicides in
rosette stage.
Common Mullein`'
Verbascum thapsus
VETH
B
Cut and dig rosettes and bolting plants prior to seed set; re -seed
with aggressive grasses. Herbicides may be necessary on dense
infestations.
Downy Bronx"-
Bromus tectorum
BRIE
A
Eliminate seed source; re- vegetate with native grasses;
herbicide treatment in early spring and fall. Avoid overgrazing.
HoundstongueB
Cynoglossum officinale
CYOF
B
Re -seed with aggressive grasses, remove at flowering or early
seed; dig or grub at pre -bud or rosette stage or apply herbicides
prior to bud stage.
Musk Thistle'
Carduus nutans
CANU
B
Tillage or hand grubbing in the rosette stage, mowing at bolting
or early flowering; seed head & rosette weevils, leaf feeding
beetles, herbicides in rosette stage.
Tamarisk'
Tamarix sp.
TARA
P
Repeated flooding prevents seedling establishment. Herbicide
treatment on basal portion of young plants; cut larger plants and
treat with herbicide plus adjuvant within 30 minutes. Plant area
with native species to shade out tamarisk. Biological with
Diorhabda elongata deserticola, the tamarisk leaf beetle, if
available (Tamarisk Coalition 2007).
* Government weed listing: Bold — Garfield County, Colorado. Superscript - Colorado State B or C list,
** Type: A- annual, B- Biennial, P- Perennial
3.4 Recommended Treatment Strategies
It is important to know whether the target is annual, biennial, or perennial to select strategies that
effectively control and eliminate the target. Treatment strategies are different depending on plant
type, which are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Herbicides should not always be the first
treatment of choice when other methods can be effectively employed.
Table 3. Treatment Strategies for Annual and Biennial Noxious Weeds
Target: Prevent Seed Production
1. Hand grub (pull), hoc, till, cultivate in rosette stage and before flowering or seed maturity. If seeds
develop, cut and bag seed heads.
2. Cut roots with a spade just below soil level.
3. Treat with herbicide in rosette or bolting stage, before flowering.
4. Mow biennials after bolting stage, before seed set. Mowing annuals will not prevent flowering but
can reduce total seed production.
(Sirota 2004)
WestWater Engineering
Page 6 of 14
4/21/2008
Table 4. Treatment Strategies for Perennials
Target: Deplete nutrient reserves in root system, prevent seed production
1. Allow plants to expend as much energy from root system as possible, do not treat when first emerging
in spring, but allow growth to bud/bloom stage. If seeds develop, cut and bag if possible.
2. Herbicide treatment at bud to bloom stage or in the fall (recommended, after August 15 when natural
precipitation is present). In the fall, plants draw nutrients into the roots for winter storage. Herbicides
will be drawn down to the roots more efficiently at this time due to translocation of nutrients to roots
rather than leaves. If the weed patch has been present for a long period of time, another season of seed
production is not as important as getting the herbicide into the root system. Spraying in fall (after
middle August) will kill the following year's shoots, which are being formed on the roots at this time.
3. Mowing usually is not recommended because the plants will flower anyway; seed production should
be reduced. Many studies have shown that mowing perennials and spraying the re- growth is not as
effective as spraying without mowing. Effect of mowing is species dependent; therefore, it is
imperative to know the species and its basic biology. Timing of application must be done when
biologically appropriate, which is not necessarily convenient.
4. Tillage may or may not be effective. Most perennial roots can sprout from pieces only Y2" — 1" long.
Clean machinery thoroughly before leaving the weed patch.
5. Hand pulling is generally not recommended for perennial species unless you know the plants are
seedlings and not established plants. Hand pulling can be effective on small patches but is very labor
intensive because it must be done repeatedly.
(Sirota 2004)
Herbicide treatment with two or more herbicide modes of action in fall (after approximately
August 15 when natural precipitation is present) is the best method to control difficult species.
Some weeds, particularly annuals and biennials, can develop resistance to herbicides. The ability
to quickly develop immunity to herbicides, especially they are used incorrectly, makes it
imperative to use the proper chemicals at the correct time in the specified concentration. Most
misuse seems centered around excessive use either in frequency or concentration. This results in
mostly top kill and an immune phenotype.
3.5 Life Cycle and Management Calendars
Best results in the control of tamarisk, houndstongue, bull and milk thistles can be achieved by
following the recommended timetable presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Noxious Weed Biology
Species Type' "fan rFeb iMarch [May June July [Aug (Sept [Oct
Vloundstongue 1p rosettes [
B r If c [flowering, seed
eed set
e t F 'germination on F
[1iisThistle, Bull -IB
2nd year ` "'Y fl (seed
tleBull -
1st year [rmination 4 4 4
rThistle, Musk B
I" 1st year
f
Thistle, Musk B josettes r [4-4
- 2 year
Tamarisk*
P
germination
[fl9owering t : flowering, [Semi dormancy
growth seed set
A.4
Shaded areas indicate best control timing.
4
Seed
set
I�t 1-i rosettes
4 r
IT: : A = annual; B = biennial; P — perennial
I . Tamarisk control can be done any time of the year, but is easier when leaves are absent and weather is cooler.
(Sirota 2004)
WestWater Engineering
{-4 r -- -
r..
Page 7 of 14 4/21/2008
Figure 2 is an alternative schedule for life cycle and control of biennial thistles such as bull
thistle and musk thistle. It is also appropriate to control common mullein. One column that
should be added is cutting of rosettes, which can be done any time during growing.
Figure 2. Life Cycle and Management strategies for biennial thistles
Emergence
Summer
Herbicide
Application
PO RD
Flub,
Appl,
Mowing
Bobs fkyovs dies
$pring
Year 1
Year 2
(Hartzler 2006)
3.6 Commercial Applicator Recommendations
A certified commercial applicator is a good choice for herbicide control efforts, Regulations
may require a Colorado licensed applicator. An applicator has the full range of knowledge,
skills, equipment and experience desired when dealing with tough noxious weeds.
Reclamation farming services using multiple seed bin range drills and specialized related
equipment is available and should be used for reclamation seeding projects.
Common chemical and trade names may be used in this report. The use of trade names is
for clarity by the reader. Inclusion of a trade name does not imply endorsement of that
particular brand of herbicide and exclusion does not imply non - approval. Certified
commercial applicators will decide which herbicide to use and at what concentration
according to label directions. Landowners using unrestricted products must obey all label
warnings, cautions, and application concentrations. The author of this report is not
responsible for inappropriate herbicide use by readers.
3.7 Best Management Practices — Noxious Weeds
The following practices should be adopted for any construction project to reduce the costs of
noxious weed control. The practices include:
WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 14 4/21/2008
• top soil, where present, should be segregated from deeper soils and replaced as top soil
on the final grade, a process known as live topsoil handling;
• wetland vegetation, if encountered, should be live handled like sod, temporarily watered
if necessary, and placed over excavated sub -soil relative to the position from which the
wetland sod was removed;
• cut -off collars should be placed on all wetland and stream crossings to prevent back
washing or draining of important aquatic resources;
• in all cases, temporary disturbance should be kept to an absolute minimum;
• equipment and materials handling should be done on established sites such as the
northern point of origin to reduce area and extent of soil compaction;
• disturbances should be immediately re- seeded with the recommended mix in the re-
vegetation section;
• topsoil stockpiles should be seeded with non - invasive sterile hybrid grasses, if stored
longer than one growing season;
• prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be cleaned of soils remaining from
previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds; and
• if working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of
potentially seed - bearing soils and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated
terrain.
In areas with slope greater than 3 %, imprinting of the seed bed is recommended. Imprinting can
be in the form of dozer tracks or furrows perpendicular to the direction of slope. When utilizing
hydro- seeding followed by mulching, imprinting should be done prior to seeding unless the
mulch is to be crimped into the soil surface. If broadcast seeding and harrowing, imprinting
should be done as part of the harrowing. Furrowing can be done by several methods, the most
simple of which is to drill seed perpendicular to the direction of slope in a prepared bed. Other
simple imprinting methods include deep hand raking and harrowing, always perpendicular to the
direction of slope.
Herbicides: Difficult species respond better to an application of a combination of two or more
chemical modes of action (biological reason for plant death) rather than one (Boerboom 1999).
It has also been found that use of two different groups of chemicals in the same mode of action
can increase effectiveness on difficult species, e.g., phenoxys and benzoic acids or carboxylic
acids and benzoic acids in a mix. Some come commercially pre - mixed, e.g., Crossbow and
Super Weed -be -Gone Max, which are available over the counter. However, some of the most
effective herbicides are restricted use and available only for licensed applicators.
Professionals or landowners using herbicides must use the concentration specified on the label of
the container in hand. Herbicides generally do not work better at higher concentrations. Most
herbicide failures observed by WWE are related to incomplete control caused by high
concentrations killing top growth before the active ingredient can be transported to the roots
through the nutrient translocation process. Most herbicide applications should use a surfactant if
directed on the herbicide label or other adjuvants as called for on the herbicide label.
WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 14 4/21/2008
Grazing: Grazing should be deferred, in reclaimed areas, until the desired grass species are
established.
Mechanical: Bull thistle was found in low density and is an example where control could be
accomplished mechanically. Effectiveness can be increased by severing the root just below the
crown of noxious weeds instead of at greater depths.
Alternative Methods: An alternative method, particularly for downy brome infestations and
poor or destroyed topsoil, is the application of vesicular- arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi typically
referred to as AMF. These fungi, mostly of the genus Glomus are symbiotic with about 80% of
all vegetation. Endo- mycorrhizal fungi are associated mostly with grasses and forbs and could
be helpful when reclaiming this project. In symbiosis, the fungi increase water and nutrient
transfer capacity of the host root system by as much as several orders of magnitude (Barrow and
McCaslin 1995).
Over- the - counter commercial products, which are better adapted to coating seeds when re-
seeding and treating roots of live seedling trees and shrubs at time of planting, come in powder
form and are available from many different sources. Some also come in granular form to be
spread with seed from a broadcast spreader. The best AMF products should contain more than
one species.
All Colorado State Forest Salida District tree and shrub plantings include the application of
AMF. According to District Forester Crystal Tischler, "AMF is worth it" ( Tischler 2006). Most,
if not all, Colorado Department of Transportation re- vegetation/re- seeding projects now require
use of AMF and BioSol, a certified by- product of the penicillin manufacturing process composed
primarily of mycelium. Compacted soils respond well to fossilized humic substances and by-
products called humates. These humates, including humic and fulvic acids and humin were
formed from pre - historic plant and animal deposits and work especially well on compacted soils
when applied as directed.
Biological control of widespread infestations, in the project area, using natural insect agents are
available for tamarisk (see Table 2) and musk thistle. This later weed may be controlled by the
musk and plumeless thistle rosette weevil, Trichosirocalus horridus, and the thistle defoliating
beetle, Cassida rubiginosa, which feeds on the foliage of Canada, musk, and plumeless thistles
(Sullivan 2004).
4.0 REVEGETATION -- RECLAMATION
4.1 Project Area
The project area includes a variety of terrain including steep mountain side - slopes, rolling
hillsides, and gently sloping bottomland. Successful reclamation of the project area is dependent
upon soil type and texture, aspect, slope, proper weed control and re- vegetation with suitable
plant species.
Based on the soil types, terrain, and the presence of noxious weeds in the project area, successful
reclamation is most likely if a seed mix of grasses is used (Tables 6 and 7). This will allow
control of noxious weeds while establishing vegetation in the disturbed areas. Two seed mixes
WestWater Engineering Page 10 of 14 4/21/2008
Table 6. Seed Mix for Pinyon - Juniper Woodland and /or Mountain/Wyoming Big Sagebrush Shrubland.
Project area mountain toeslopes, alluvial fans, and drainage bottoms
Common Name
Scientific Names
Variety
Season
Form
PLS
lbs/acre*
Plant the Following (10% Total)
Indian Ricegrass
Achnatherum [Oryzopsis] hymenoides
Nezpar, Paloma,
Rinvock
Cool 'Bunch
1.9
and Both of the Following (15% Each, 30% Total)
Galleta
Pleuraphis [Hilaria] jamesii
Viva florets
Warm
Bunch
2.5
Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Pseudoroegneria spicata, Agropyron spicatum
Secar' P -7'
Anatone
Cool
Bunch
2.8
and One of the Following (20% Total)
Thickspike Wheatgrass
Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus, Agropyron
dasystachyum
Critana,
Schwendimar
Cool
Sod - forming
3.4
Slender Wheatgrass
Elymus trachycaulus, Agropyron trachycaulum
San Luis
Cool
Bunch
3.3
and Two of the Following (40% Total)
Muttongrass
Poa fendleriana
Cool
Bunch
0.6
Sandberg Bluegrass
Poa sandbergii, Poa secunda
Cool
Bunch
0.6
Bottlebrush Squirreltail
Elymus elymoides, Sitanion hystrix
Cool
Bunch
2.7
*Based on 60 pure live seeds (PLS) per square foot, drill-seeded. Double this rate (120 PLS per square foot) if broadcast or hydroseeded
WestWater Engineering
Page 11 of 14
4/21/2008
Table 7. Seed Mix for Mountain Shrubland, including Oakbrush (Project area mountain side- slopes)
Common Name
Scientific Names
Variety
Season
Form
PLS
lbs/acre*
Plant Both of the Following (20% Each, 40% Total)
Thickspike Wheatgrass
Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus, Agropyron
dasystachyum
Critana,
Schwendimar
Cool
Sod -forming
3.4
Bluebunch Wheatgrass
Pseudoroegneria spicata, Agropyron spicatum
Secar, P 7,
Anatone
Cool
Bunch
3.7
and One of the Following (20% Total)
Bottlebrush Squirreltail
Elymus elymoides, Sitanion hystrix
r
Cool
Bunch
i
2.7
Slender Wheatgrass
Elymus trachycaulu, Agropyron trachycaulum
San Luis
Cool
Bunch
3.3
and One of the Following (20% Total)
Canby Bluegrass
Poa canbyi, P. secunda
Canbar
Cool
Bunch
0.6
Mutton Bluegrass
Poa fendleriana
Cool
Bunch
0.6
and One of the Following (10% Total)
Letterman Needlegrass
Achnatherum [Stipa] lettermanii
Cool
Bunch
—
1.7
Columbia Needlegrass
Achnatherum [Stipa] nelsonii, Stipa columbiana
Cool
Bunch
1.7
.
and One of the Following (10% Total)
Indian Ricegrass
Achnatherum [Oryzopsis] hymenoides
Nezpar, Paloma,
Rimrock
Cool
Bunch
1.9
Junegrass
Koeleria macrantha, K. cristata
Cool
Bunch
0.1
*Based on 60 pure live seeds (PLS) per square foot, drill- seeded. Double this rate (120 PLS per square foot) if broadcast or hydroseeded.
WestWater Engineering
Page 12 of 14
4/21/2008
are presented based on soil type and available moisture; one for the gentler, often drier, lower
slopes and one for the higher altitude steeper sites. Note: Re- vegetation on very steep or west
facing mountain side- slopes may be difficult due to thin soil and harsh climatic conditions.
Surface disturbance should be minimized in those areas.
For best results and success, the recommended grass mixture reseeding should be done in
late autumn. The reseeding rate should be doubled for broadcast application (CNHP 1998).
Preferred seeding method is multiple seed bin rangeland drill with no soil preparation other than
simple grading to slope and imprinting and waterbars, where applicable.
Alternative seeding methods include, but are not limited to:
• harrow with just enough soil moisture to create a rough surface, broadcast seed and re-
harrow, preferably at a 90 degree angle to the first harrow;
• hydro - seeding (most economical in terms of seed cost); and
• hand raking and broadcast followed by re- raking at a 90 degree angle to the first raking.
• These are not the only means of replanting the site. However, these methods have been
observed to be effective in similar landscapes.
After desired grasses are established and control of target weed species is successful, then
shrubs, forbs and trees can be planted without concern for herbicide damage. Few native forb
seeds are available commercially as cultivars. Most are collected from natural populations.
Native shrubs and forbs often do not establish well from seed, particularly when mixed with
grasses. Past experience has shown that stabilizing the soil with grasses, accomplishing weed
control, and then coming back to plant live, containerized woody species in copses has been the
most cost effective method for establishing the woody species component of the plant
community.
For sites where soil disturbance will be temporary, grasses should be drilled after construction
activities cease and the equipment removed from the site. After two years of controlling weeds
(with herbicides) and allowing the grasses to become established, forbs and woody species
should be inter - seeded or hand - planted to increase the diversity and value of the reclamation
plantings.
5.0 REFERENCES
Barrow, J. R., and Bobby D. McCaslin. 1995. Role of microbes in resource management in arid
ecosystems. In: Barrow, J. R., E. D. McArthur, R. E. Sosebee, and Tausch, R. J., comps.
1996. Proceedings: shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment. General
Technical Report, 1NT-GTR-338, Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Forest Service, Intermountain Resource Station, 275 pp.
Boerboom, C. 1999. Herbicide mode of action reference. Weed Science, University of
Wisconsin, 5 pp.
WestWater Engineering Page 13 of 14 4/21/2008
CNHP. 1998. Native Plant Re- vegetation Guide for Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage
Program, Caring for the Land Series, Vol. III, State of Colorado, Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, 258 pp.
CWMA. 2007. S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran, S. EIzinga, J. Powell, I. Schonle, K. Uhing.
Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association,
Centennial.
Garfield County Vegetation Management and Garfield County Weed Advisory Board. 2002.
Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan. Resolution #2002 -94, October 21.
Hutzler, B. 2006. Biennial thistles of Iowa. ISU Extension Agronomy.
www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/2006/iowathistles.shtml
Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine
Publishing, Auburn, Washington.
NRCS. 2008. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
Service, URL: http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov.
Sirota, J. 2004. Best management practices for noxious weeds of Mesa County. Colorado State
University Cooperative Extension Tri River Area, Grand Junction, Colorado. URL:
http://www.coopextcolostate.edu/TRA/Weeds/weedmgmt.html
State of Colorado. 2005. Rules pertaining to the administration and enforcement of the Colorado
Noxious Weed Act, 35 -5 -1 -119, C.R.S. 2003. Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry
Division, Denver, 78 pp.
Sullivan, P.G. 2004. Thistle control alternatives. Appropriate Technology
Transfer for Rural Areas, National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service,
Fayetteville, Arkansas, 9 pp.
Tamarisk Coalition. 2007. Grand Junction, CO. URL:
http://www.tamariskcoalition.org/tamariskeoalition/index.php
Tischler, C. 2006. District Forester, Colorado State Forest Service, Salida, Colorado. Personal
communication with Bill Clark, WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado.
Weber, W. A. and R. C. Wittmann. 2001. Colorado Flora: Western Slope, Third Edition.
University Press of Colorado, Boulder Colorado.
Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D.
Lee, and R. Parker. 2001. Weeds of the West — 0 edition. Western Society of Weed
Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming,
Laramie
WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 14 4/21/2008
APPENDIX A
Garfield County Noxious Weed List
Species
Common name
Species '
Code
Growth
Form'
Life
History2
State "A"
List
r
State "B"
List
State
"C" List
Garfield
List
Acroptilon repens
Russian knapweed
ACRE 3
F
P
X
X
Aegilops cylindrica
Jointed goatgrass
AECY
G
A
X
X
Arctium minus
Common (Lesser) burdock
ARMI 2 '
F
B
X
X
Cardaria draba
Hoary cress, Whitetop
CADR
F
P
X
X
Carduus acanthoides
Spiny plumeless thistle
CAAC
F
B, WA
X
X
Carduus nutans
Musk (Nodding plumeless) thistle
CANU 4
F
B
X
X
Centaurea diffusa
Diffuse knapweed
CEDI 3
F
P
X
X
Centaurea maculosa
Spotted knapweed
CEMA 4
F
P
X
X
Centaurea solstitialis
Yellow starthistle
CESO 3
F
A
X
X
Chrysanthemum
leucanthemum
Oxeye daisy
CHLE 80
F
P
X
X
Cichorium intybus
Chicory
CIIN
F
P
X
X
Cirsium arvense
Canada thistle
CIAR 4
F
P
X
X
Cynoglossum offrcinale
Houndstongue, Gypsyflower
CYOF
F
B
X
X
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Russian olive
ELAN
T
P
X
X
Euphorbia esula
Leafy spurge
EUES
F
P
X
X
Linaria dalmatica
Dalmatian toadfiax, broad - leaved
LIDA
F
P
X
X
Linaria vulgaris
Yellow toadflax
LIVU 2
F
P
X
X
Lythrum sallcaria
Purple loosestrife
LYSA 2
F
P
X
X
Onopordum acanthium
Scotch thistle
ONAC
F
B
X
Tamarix parviflora
Smallflower tamarisk
TAPA 4
T
P
X
_X
X
Tamarix ramosissima
Salt cedar, Tamarisk
TARA
T
P
X
X
1 — Growth form: T = tree /shrub; F = forblvine; G = graminoid 2 — Life history: A = annual; B = biennial; P = perennial; WA = winter annual
WestWater Engineering
Appendix A — Page 1
4/21/2008
APPENDIX B
Noxious Weed Location UTM's
(Garfield County listed weeds in bold)
Weed
Fasting UTM Northing
Comments
Bull Thistle
12S 0727952 4386277
4 plants
12S 0728221 4385607
1
12S 0728098 4385829
_plant
2
_plants
Common Mullein
12S 0728303 4385550
100 ft long row along road.
12S 0727845 4383099
Few
12S 0727916 4383043
50 ft circle
12S 0727939 4383025
Moderate amount along old road
bed. See Appendix D, Photo 7.
12S 0728088 4382934
Few
12S 0727933 4386123
Few
12S 0727954 4386138
Few
12S 0727977 4386089
30plants.
12S 0728034 4385972
Few
12S 0728158 4385668
20 plants
12S 0728310 4385571
Dense; 100 plants.
12S 0728369 4385571
Dense; 100 plants.
12S 0728602 4385710
5 p1ants.
12S 0728623 4385739
Dense; 300plants.
Common Mullein /
Houndstongue
12S 0727482 4383991
Polygon Start. These are west
boundary points. Polygon goes
east to Clear Creek
12S 0727479 4383930
12S 0727548 4383898
Cont.
12S 0727541 4383816
Cont.
12S 0727466 4383711
Cont.
12S 0727493 4383669
Polygon Stop
12S 0727705 4383795
Polygon Start. North of access
road to newpad
12S 0727490 4384050
Cont.
12S 0727580 4384025
Cont.
12S 0727750 4383865
Polygon Stop.
12S 0728145 4383105
Polygon Start.
12S 0728138 4383205
Very dense infestation.
12S 0728075 4383220
Cont.
12S 0728035 4383185
Polygon Stop
WestWater Engineering
Appendix B — Page 1
4/21/2008
Weed
UTM
Easting
UTM Northing
Comments
Common Mullein /
Houndstongue
12S 0727985
4383505
Polygon Start.
12S 0728181
4383740
Low density but continuous
Musk Thistle
128 0728200
4384020
coverage.
12S 0728060
4383755
Polygon Stop.
12S 0727482
4383991
20 plants
12S 0728200
4384205
75 ft row on talus slope
128 0727840
4383168
50 ft. circle
128 0728261
4383841
24 plants
Common Mullein /
Musk Thistle
12S 0727764
4383251
Moderately thick musk thistle.
12S 0727981
4383020
Few muskthistle
128 0728105
4383540
4 plants
Common Mullein /
Houndstongue /
Musk Thistle
12S 0728266
4383771
Start row.
12S 0728260
4383794
End row.
Tamarisk
12S 0727700
4383665
Polygon Start.
Downy Brome
Scattered almost everywhere there is vegetation. Most dense in
disturbed areas and in sagebrush. Little to none on talus slopes
WestWater Engineering
Appendix B — Page 2
4/21/2008
y
Houndstongue
12S 0727820
4383194
Few
Musk Thistle
12S 0727663
4383827
4 plants
12S 0727679
4383344
Few plants.
12S 0727482
4383991
20 plants
12S 0727568
4384005
7 plants
12S 0728183
4383701
5 plants
128 0728261
4383841
24 plants
128 0728275
4383860
50 plants
12S 0728105
4383760
34 plants
128 0728105
4383540
4 plants
128 0728232
4385557
2plants
Tamarisk
12S 0727700
4383665
Polygon Start.
128 0727745
4383635
Cont.
128 0727710
4383590
Cont.
128 0727708
4383625
Polygon Stop.
12S 0727695
4383845
10 ft. diameter clump.
12S 0727750
4383570
Linear feature Start.
,
12S 0727765
4383475
Cont.
WestWater Engineering
Appendix B — Page 2
4/21/2008
Weed
UTM
Easting
UTM Northing
Comments
Tamarisk
12S 727805
4383425
Cont.
12S 727800
4383385
Cont.
12S 727815
4383350
Linear feature Stop.
12S 728340
4382895
Start row.
12S 728355
4382885
Stop row.
WestWater Engineering Appendix B — Page 3 4/21/2008
APPENDIX C
Additional Photos
Photo 2. Clear Creek drainage near the Tom Creek confluence, looking north
Photo 3. Steep side- slopes of Toni Creek drainage, looking south
WestWater Engineering
Appendix C — Page I 4/21/2008
APPENDIX C
Additional Photos
Photo 4. New Mexico locust near Clear Creek; Common mullein in foreground
Photo 5. Common mullein infestation near Clear Creek
WestWater Engineering
Appendix C — Page 2 4/21/2008
APPENDIX C
Additional Photos
rRS h..: a0,4 VIC : AMIEZCir. . 9r. 3 .►arl?" 3040.v71w.+ MYBs `1rhca+ .i'u4',f. 41: .i .,i egia
Photo 6. First year houndstongue rosette
•
Photo 7. Weeds, such as common mullein, often frequent
disturbed areas such as this old roadbed
WestWater Engineering
Appendix C — Page 3 4/21/2008
BLM 40 Acre Parcel Biological Survey
T. 5 S., R. 98 W., Sections 21 and 22
Garfield County, Colorado
Looking across the BLM parcel towards the northeast corner. Boxelder trees line Clear Creek.
Prepared for:
Chevron North America
Prepared by:
WestWater Engineering
2516 Foresight Circle #1
Grand Junction, CO 81501
September 2008
1.0 Introduction
Chevron requested that WestWater Engineering (W WE) conduct a biological survey of 40 acres
of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property in the Clear Creek drainage to document the
location of raptor nests, the presence of Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plant Species
(TESS), the extent of weed infestations, the presence and location of Birds of Conservation
Concern (BOCC) other than raptors, and the location of waterways potentially under the
jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Chevron is planning a series of projects in the Clear Creek drainage. These will include a well
pad (598- 21 -AV) north of the BLM parcel and another pad (598- 22 -BV) to the south of it. There
are plans to install trunk and feeder lines near the northeast corner of the BLM parcel.
Construction plans also include a 69 kv power line that will run beyond, but near, the southwest
comer of the parcel.
1.1 Project Scope and Location
Clear Creek is located in Garfield County, Colorado approximately 12 miles north of the town of
DeBeque. It is one of the major tributaries of Roan Creek. The mouth of the canyon is located
Clear Creek and its tributaries drain approximately 113 square miles of the Roan Plateau.
Elevations range from 6240 feet along Clear Creek to 6700 feet near the south boundary of the
parcel.
Figure 1. Yellow line is the boundary of the BLM 40 acre project area. Inset is the general location.
WestWater Engineering
Page 1 of 20 pages
9/11/2008
This biological survey was restricted to the 40 acre parcel of BLM property between Cottonwood
Creek and Sheep Gulch in Sections 21 and 22, T.5 S., R.98 W. located under the rim of Clear
Creek Canyon (Figure 1). The BLM parcel is about 20.5 miles northwest of DeBeque. The parcel
was surveyed on August 12, 2008, however biologists also recorded pertinent observations
during the course of nearby associated surveys in or near the parcel on July 25, 30, 31, and
August 5 and 7. Locations noted in this report were recorded with handheld GPS units and are
reported as UTM (WGS84, Zone 12S) coordinates.
1.2 Landscape Setting
The terrain in the project area varies from gently sloping valley bottoms to steep mountain side
slopes. Clear Creek is the only perennial stream in the project area. An unnamed intermittent
stream is found in the southwest corner of the parcel.
1.3 Soils
Soil types and the vegetation that they support vary with parent material, elevation, slope and
aspect. Mapped soil types, as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), were reviewed to determine the soil types and
vegetation characteristics of the survey site and surrounding property (NRCS 2008). Figure 2
illustrates the soil mapping unit boundaries in the BLM parcel.
The project area includes four types of soil; Cumulic Haploboroll, Tosca channery loam, Utso —
Rock Outcrop, and Happle very channery sandy loam.
The almost level flood plain of Clear Creek lies on Mapping Unit 28: Cumulic Haploboroll, 1-
3% slopes. The Cumulic Haploboroll formed from Wasatch shale or Green River shale alluvium
and has a thickened surface horizon from material added during periods of flooding. Vegetation
observed on the Cumulic Haploboroll soil was mountain boxelder (Acer negundo) and
introduced and naturalized New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana).
Mapping Unit 67: Tosca channery Ioam on 25 -80% slopes is on the toe slopes to the west of
Clear Creek. The Tosca soil formed in alluvium and colluvium from sandstone and shale. It has
dark surface horizon and a layer of accumulated calcium carbonate. Potential native vegetation
on the Tosca soil is mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate ssp. vaseyana), Utah
serviceberry (Amelanchier utahensis), alderleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus),
bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii).
The steep mountain side slopes in the west and south portions of the BLM parcel lie on Mapping
Unit 71: Utso — Rock Outcrop complex, 40 -90% slopes. The Utso soil formed in alluvium,
colluvium, or residuum from sandstone and shale. It is moderately deep and has a dark surface
horizon. Potential native vegetation on the Utso soil is similar to that of the Tosca soil with the
addition of needle and thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), mutton grass (Poa fendleriana), blue
grama (Bouteloua gracilis), and brome (Bromus spp).
WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
The alluvial fans northeast of Clear Creek lie on soils of Mapping Unit 45: Happle very channery
sandy loam,12 -25% slopes. The Web Soil Survey indicates that these alluvial fans consist of
Mapping Unit 75: Wrayha - Rabbitex- Veatch very stony loam, 45 -65% slopes. However, after
studying the soil mapping of adjacent fans the opinion of WWE biologists is that the number
"75" on the Web Soil Survey mapping unit is most likely a typographic error for "45 ". The
Happle soil formed in alluvium and colluvium from the Green River Formation on toe slopes and
alluvial fans. Characteristic native vegetation on the Happle soil is Wyoming big sagebrush
(Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata),
needle and thread grass, and Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides).
Figure 2; Soil mapping units.
1.4 Vegetation Types
Figure 3: Vegetation types.
Figure 3 illustrates the approximate boundaries of the six vegetation communities. The cover
figure and Figure 9 (page 16) illustrate the vegetation types. Six main vegetation communities
were mapped within the BLM parcel. The numbers in the list below correspond to the numbers
in Figure 3.
1) Basin big sagebrush with rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothammnus nauseosus), various
wheatgrasses, and thinly scattered cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) on alluvial fans northeast of
Clear Creek.
2) Basin big sagebrush and clusters of Gambel oak (oakbrush) or Saskatoon serviceberry
(Amelanchier alnifolia), with grasses and forbs, between Clear Creek and mountain sideslopes.
3) Dense New Mexico Iocust thicket with a thin understory of cheatgrass and weeds (cover photo
between the sagebrush and the riparian area).
4) Brushy mountain sideslopes with Gambel oak, Saskatoon serviceberry, mountain spray
(Holodiscus durnosus), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), snowberry (Symphoricarpus
rotundifolius), Oregon grape (Berberis repens), various fescues, and Indian ricegrass.
WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
5) Riparian vegetation along Clear Creek of thick boxelder, with New Mexico locust,
chokecherry, clematis (Clematis ligustifolia), hydrophytic vegetation (such as field mint, Mentha
arvensis and blue joint grass, Calamagrostis canadensis), and weeds. The riparian area in the
unnamed gulch is similar but with almost no New Mexico locust and little to no hydrophytic
vegetation or weeds.
6) Overstory of Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with oakbrush and serviceberry.
Not shown in Figure 3 is a very small area in the extreme northeast corner of the BLM parcel
consisting of shale talus with sparse shrubs (Figure 5).
2.0 Birds of Conservation Concern
2.1 Background Information
As part of the protection and management of avian species, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
in 2002 published a list of BOCC (FWS 2002). In a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the
BLM, FWS and Forest Service (FS) placed the highest priority for conservation on birds
included on the BOCC list. A subset of this list includes a register of BOCC for the Southern
Rockies and the Colorado Plateau, including Western Colorado.
Not all of these BOCC species occur regularly in Colorado and some are present only as seasonal
migrants. After a thorough review of the literature (Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998),
WWE biologists compiled a list of the BOCC species likely to nest in or near the BLM parcel.
Habitat and nesting records for BOCC, as described in the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas
(Kingery 1998, and references therein) and Colorado Birds (Andrews and Righter 1992), in the
vicinity of the parcel are summarized below. Bird identification and taxonomic nomenclature are
in accordance with that applied by the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Project (Kingery 1998).
2.2 Raptors
The BLM, in its approved White River Resource Area Resource Management Plan (1997),
places special emphasis on conservation of all raptors, including species indigenous to the Roan
Plateau but not on the BOCC list. The BLM objectives for raptors state: "Maintain the short-
term utility and promote the continued long -term development and availability of suitable raptor
habitats. This includes prey base, nest sites and other special habitat features necessary to help
stabilize or allow increases in regional raptor populations." Table 1 includes the common name,
scientific name, BOCC status, habitat requirements and breeding status for raptors that could be
observed in the project area and Clear Creek drainage.
WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
Table 1. Raptor species potentially present in or near the project area.
Common /
Scientific Name
BOCC
List
Habitat & Breeding Records
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Y
• Riparian corridors along major river drainages in Western Colorado.
Nests in mature cottonwood trees, most commonly within 100 yards
of open water.
• Uncommon Nester: Approximately 5 known nests found along the
Colorado River from Rifle, CO downstream to the Utah state line.
• Common Winter migrant along the Colorado River corridor, Roan
Creek and Parachute Creek.
Northern Harrier
Circus cyaneus
Y
• Grassland, shrubland, agricultural areas, and marshes. Nests in
areas with abundant cover (e.g., tall reeds, cattails, grasses) in
grasslands and marshes. Also known to nest in high - elevation
sagebrush.
• Uncommon: Found by WWE to be a nester near the Divide Road in
the Stewart and Story Gulch area in Rio Blanco and Garfield
Counties, 2006.
Cooper's Hawk
Accipiter cooperii
N
• Cottonwood riparian to spruce /fir forests, including pirion/juniper
woodlands. Nests most frequently in pines and aspen.
• Common: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties
and recently along Clear Creek.
Sharp - shinned
Hawk
Accipiter sfriatus
N
• High density young, or even -aged, stands of coniferous forest and
deciduous forests of aspen or oak brush with small stands of
conifers.
• Uncommon: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield
Counties.
Northern Goshawk
Accipiter gentiles
N
• Typically in high elevation coniferous or aspen forest. Can occur in
Pinon- juniper habitat.
• Rare: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties.
Red - tailed Hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
• Diverse habitats including grasslands, pifion- juniper woodlands and
deciduous, coniferous and riparian forests. Nests in mature trees
(especially cottonwood, aspen, and pines) and on cliffs and utility
poles.
• Common: Confirmed breeder throughout the Roan Plateau area.
Swainson's Hawk
Buteo swainsoni
Y
• Typically, arid grassland, desert, agricultural areas, shrublands and
riparian forests. Nests in trees in or near open areas.
• Uncommon: Confirmed breeding in oak brush by WWE biologists on
Roan Plateau, 2005.
Ferruginous Hawk
Buteo regalis
Y
• Ungrazed to lightly grazed grassland and shrubland with varied
topography. Nests in isolated trees, rock outcrops, structures such
as windmills and power poles, or on the ground (especially on hill
tops).
• Uncommon: Nesting has been recorded in western Rio Blanco and
Garfield Counties.
Golden Eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
Y
• Grasslands, shrublands, agricultural areas, pinion- juniper
woodlands, and ponderosa forests. Prefers nest sites on cliffs and
sometimes in trees in rugged areas.
• Common: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties
WestWater Engineering
Page 5 of 20 pages
9/11/2008
Table 1. Raptor species potentially present in or near the project area.
Common /
Scientific Name
BOCC
List
Habitat & Breeding Records
American Kestrel
Falco sparverius
N
• Coniferous and deciduous forests and open terrain with suitable
perches. Nests in cavities in trees, cliffs and buildings.
• Common: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties.
Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrines
Y
• Pit-ion-juniper woodlands and coniferous and riparian forest near
cliffs. Nests on ledges of high cliffs away from human disturbance.
• Rare: Nesting confirmed in upper Clear Creek and upper Tom
Creek in 2007 and in Scott Gulch in 2008.
Prairie Falcon
Falco mexicanus
Y
• Grasslands, shrublands, and alpine tundra. Nests on cliffs or bluffs
in open areas.
• Rare: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties.
Flammulated Owl
Otus flammeolus
Y
• Dry, montane ponderosa pine, Douglas -fir, and aspen dominated
forests. Also known to nest in old- growth pmon- juniper. Nests in
cavities in trees.
• Rare: Confirmed presence and likely breeder in Garfield County,
documented in aspen east of Clear Creek Canyon by WWE
biologists during 2006.
Great Horned Owl
Bubo virginianus
N
• Occupies diverse habitats including riparian, deciduous and
coniferous forests with adjacent open terrain for hunting.
• Common: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco and Garfield counties.
Northern Saw-
whet Owl
Aegolius acadicus
N
• Mountain and foothills forest and canyon country. Significant use of
pinon- juniper woodland and Douglas -fir.
• Uncommon: Confirmed breeder in Garfield and Rio Blanco
Counties.
Long -eared Ow!
Asia otus
N
• Occupies mixed shrublands. Nests and roost in sites in dense
cottonwoods, willows, scrub oak, junipers and dense forest of mixed
conifers and aspens.
• Uncommon: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco County and in
Garfield County along Parachute Creek in 2006.
2.3 Procedures for Raptor Surveys
WWE biologists conducted surveys for raptors in the BLM parcel and nearby areas from July 30
through August 12, 2008. The search was focused to locate active raptor nests; however, all
raptor sightings and nest locations (including inactive nests) were recorded
Biologists used binoculars and spotting scopes which permitted close -in views of potential nest
sites and to determine if any ledges were being actively used by birds. WWE biologists walked
the riparian corridors and hillsides searching for nests of raptor species.
In addition to these visual searching techniques, the biologists used the recorded call play -back
methodology described by P. Kennedy (Kennedy and Stahlecker 1993; the "Kennedy-
Stahlecker-Rinker" method) as modified by R. Reynolds and others (1992) for the southwestern
United States. WWE biologists used "Foxpro FX3 Digital Game Caller" units and played the
WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
call of a Great Horned Owl or a Cooper's Hawk alarm call in an attempt to locate raptors who
often respond to the presence and calls of other raptors.
2.4 Raptor Observations
Figure 4. Inactive (yellow dot) and active (red dot) 2008 raptor nests. Blue dots are 2007 owl calling stations.
Green dot is the location of an owl response in 2007.
WWE biologists observed relatively few raptors in the Clear Creek drainage in 2008. Within 1/2
mile of the BLM parcel a single golden eagle was seen cruising to the west along Skinner Ridge
and one Cooper's hawk was spotted to the northwest. Raptor nests and sightings beyond 1/2 mile
of the project area are not included in this report.
Suitable raptor nesting habitat is found in the project area but only three raptor nests were found
within 1/2 mile of the BLM parcel. One nest was newly discovered in 2008 and two nests that
were known to be near the project area (WestWater, May 2007) were located and checked.
Details are provided below for each raptor nest. The following abbreviations are used: Cooper's
Hawk — COHA; Unknown Accipiter — UNAC.
COHA 25 (12S 725195mE 4386410mN) — Active in 2007 and presumed active in 2008
because of observed numerous downy feathers and whitewash. No birds were seen. Nest is in a
boxelder tree about 1550 feet east of the BLM boundary.
WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
UNAC 28 (12S 724161mE 4386984mN) — Was inactive in both 2007 and 2008. Nest is in a
boxelder tree about 900 feet northwest of the BLM boundary.
UNAC 69 (12S 724124mE 4386982mN) Newly discovered inactive nest in 2008. Nest is in a
boxelder about 900 feet northwest of the BLM boundary. It is not in good repair. An adult
COHA did respond to the recorded call of a great horned owl near here.
No owl surveys have been conducted by WWE in the Clear Creek drainage in 2008. An owl
survey was done April 25 and 26, 2007. The calling station locations and owl responses from
2007 are shown in Figure 4. There was only one response, possibly from a flammulated owl,
within 1/2 mile of the BLM parcel.
2.5 Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) Other Than Raptors
The entire length of Clear Creek provides a variety of habitats for breeding BOCC birds,
however, Table 2 includes only those birds likely to be found in the habitats in or near the BLM
parcel.
Table 2. BOCC species (other than raptors) that may nest in or near the project area.
Common /
Scientific Name
Habitat & Breeding Records
Black Swift
Cypseloides
niger
• Nest cup of moss and mud on a cliff behind or near a waterfall. Arrive late; chicks
fledge 45 -49 days after hatching.
• Uncommon; breeding colony in eastern Garfield County. Waterfalls in Clear Creek,
Willow Creek, and Cottonwood Creek are potential habitat but no black swifts have
been observed at any time at any of those locations by WWE biologists.
Lewis's
Woodpecker
Melanerpes
lewis
• Riparian habitats, nests in old decadent cottonwoods
• Uncommon; individual bird observed by WWE biologist in May, 2005 on Clear
Creek above Buck Gulch.
Williamson's
Sapsucker
Sphyrapicus
thyroids
• Mixed coniferous /deciduous forest at higher elevations, 2,300 -3,260 m (7,000 -
10,700 ft). Nests in cavities in trees, commonly in aspens or pines.
• Uncommon: Confirmed breeder in Rio Blanco County including on the Roan
Plateau.
Virginia's
Warbler
Yermivora
virginiae
• Dense shrublands and scrub forests of Gambel oak, pinon juniper, mountain
mahogany or ponderosa pine. Nests on the ground among dead leaves or with rock
or log overhangs.
• Common: Nesting has been confirmed in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties
including on the Roan Plateau.
2.6 Procedures
While no specific routes or techniques were used to survey for BOCC species, WWE biologists
were vigilant for these species while watching cliffs and walking riparian areas and conducting
WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
other surveys. All songbirds observed were identified, either by visual reference, song, or by
both methods.
2.7 Observations
No BOCC species were observed by WWE biologists in the project area.. Virginia's warblers
were seen south of the Tom Creek junction in associated surveys during 2008. It is likely that
Virginia's warblers or Williamson's Sapsucker could utilize the BLM parcel at various times.
3.0 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive plant Species (TESS)
3.1 Background Information
The occurrence and distribution of TESS are strongly influenced by geologic formations and the
resulting soil types present in an area. Plants associated with shale of the Green River Formation
will likely occur at higher elevations on the ridges and steep slopes. Plants likely to occur on
Green River shale include the Roan Cliffs blazingstar, sun - loving meadowrue and Parachute
penstemon. Piceance bladderpod also prefers soils of the Green River Formation, but can be
found on more gentle slopes and in areas with shale outcrops.
Three species, Naturita milkvetch, hanging garden sullivantia, and Uinta Basin hookless cactus,
are less influenced by specific geological formations. Naturita milkvetch appears to be more
associated with sandstone outcrops and sandy /gravelly flow patterns below the sandstone layers.
Suitable habitat is often found on soils derived from the Wasatch Formation, but may also be
found on the soils of the Green River Formation. This plant has a greater range, occurring into
southwestern Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. Distribution is limited to sandstone ledges and
canyons.
Hanging garden sullivantia is restricted to hanging gardens which grow beneath waterfalls and
on cliffs below seeps. Potential habitat in the Clear Creek drainage is at the heads of the steeper
drainages and on cliffs with a permanent water source.
WWE biologists consulted the Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et al. 1997) to
determine which species could possibly be present in Clear Creek. This reference, along with
several years experience in field surveys for rare plant species, enabled WWE biologists to
develop the list of plants contained in Tables 3, 4, and 5 below.
Threatened (T), endangered (E) and candidate (C) are status categories related to the Federal
Endangered Species Act. These designations are the responsibility of the FWS and are granted
to species through a formal listing process. Candidate species are those for which the FWS has
sufficient information on their biological vulnerability to support proposals to list them as
threatened or endangered. Table 3 includes the federally listed species.
WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
Table 3. Federally-listed Threatened and Candidate Plant Species
Scientific /
Common Name
Penstemon
debilis
Status / Habitat Preference / Occurrence
• Status — Candidate
• Endemic to Garfield County with only five known occurrences; sparsely
vegetated, south facing, steep, white/pale orange shale talus in the Mahogany
Zone of the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation. Elev.
Parachute 7,800-9,000 ft.
penstemon
Sclerocactus
glaucus
Uinta basin
hooldes s
cactus
• Found in the Anvil Points and Mt. Callahan area in the Bookcliffs overlooking
1-70, east and west of the town of Parachute Colorado.
• Status - Threatened
• Typically xeric and fine textured Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium soils
overlain with cobbles and pebbles; cold desert shrub and pifion-juniper
communities along river benches, valley slopes and rolling hills.
• Known populations occur within approximately 3 miles of DeBeque,
Colorado. No known populations in the Clear Creek drainage.
Sensitive is a designation used by the BLM and FS. Sensitive plant species are designated by the
BLM State Director using criteria found in BLM Manual 6840 and from consultation with BLM
field offices, the FS and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. The BLM sensitive plant list
does not duplicate those species that are on the federal T&E list but does include some species
proposed for listing or considered as candidates for listing (Table 4). State rankings are from the
Colorado Natural Heritage Program Vascular Plant List (CNHP 2007).
Table 4. BLM or USFS Sensitive Plant Species
Scientific /
Common Name
Habitat Preference / Occurrence
Astragalus
naturitensis
Naturita milkvetch
Lesquerilla
parvillora
Piceance
bladderpod
Thalictrum
heliophilum
Sun-loving
meadowrue
• BLM sensitive. State Ranking: S2,S3 — Imperiled, Rare or Uncommon
• Sandstone mesas, ledges, crevices and slopes in pifton-juniper woodlands. Elev.
5,000-7,000 ft.
• Closest known population about 4 miles northeast of DeBeque, Colorado.
• BLM sensitive. State Ranking: S2 — Imperiled
• Shale outcrops of the Green River formation; on ledges and slopes of canyons in
open areas. Elev. 6,200-8,600 ft.
• Occurs in the Clear Creek drainage and tributaries..
• USFS sensitive. State Ranking: S2 — Imperiled
• Sparsely vegetated open sunny steep shale talus slopes of the Green River
formation
• Occurs in Clear Creek drainage and tributaries.
WestWater Engineering Page 10 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
Table 5. TESS Plants with State Ranking Only
Scientific /
Common Name
Status / Habitat Preference / Occurrence
Menzelia
rhizomata
Roan Cliffs
blazin star
Sullivantia
hapemanii
Hanging Garden
Sullivantia
• State Ranking: S2 - Imperiled
• Steep eroding talus slopes of shale, Green River formation. Elev. 5,800 -9,000 ft.
• Occurs in the CIear Creek drainage____
• State Ranking: S3 — Rare or Uncommon
• Under waterfalls, hanging gardens on wet cliffs at elevations from 7000 - 10,000
feet. Various geologic formations.
• Several occurrences in Garfield County including Clear Creek drainage and
tributaries.
3.2 Procedures
Based an soil types, slope, and potential habitat, WWE biologists searched likely areas for TESS
plants.
3.3 Observations
No TESS plants were found within the BLM parcel boundary. The sagebrush, riparian, New
Mexico locust, and brushy mountain side slopes held little suitable habitat for TESS plants.
The best habitat was found in the small area of shale talus in the extreme northeast comer of the
BLM parcel (Figure 5). Sun - loving meadowrue (Thallctrum heliophilum) was found outside the
BLM boundary, about 230 feet upslope from the northeast corner.
Figure 5. Potential TESS habitat on the shale talus slope in the extreme northeast corner of the
BLM parcel. Orange flagging is the northeast property corner. Looking southwest.
WestWater Engineering Page 11 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
One other occurrence of TESS plants occurred nearby, but not within, the BLM parcel. A single
poor specimen of hanging garden sullivantia (Sullivantia hapemanii) was found in the unnamed
drainage 500 feet to the west and across one ridge from the BLM parcel,. It was found near a
rock ledge dripping with water. The specimen did not appear robust because it was growing
under the dense shade of thick boxelder trees.
4.0 Weeds
Previous reports by WWE biologists (WWE May 2007 and 2008) have documented severe
infestations of noxious weeds along Clear Creek, especially downstream of the Tom Creek
confluence. Noxious weeds are present on the BLM parcel but severe infestations are not as
common as in those areas farther to the south.
4.1 Procedures
WWE biologists conducted foot surveys for weeds throughout the BLM parcel. Weeds species
were identified after consulting Colorado Flora: Western Slope (Weber and Wittmann 2001) and
Weeds of the West (Whitson 1996).
Figure 6. Weed Locations. Blue hatch — houndstonguefcommon mullein. Red line — Canada thistle.
Yellow dot — common mullein /musk thistle. Red dot — musk thistle. Green dot - tamarisk.
WestWater Engineering Page 12 of 20 pages
9/11/2008
4.2 Observations
Eight listed noxious weed species are found in the survey area. Figure 6 illustrates the general
location of noxious weeds in the BLM parcel. Weeds indicated by the blue hatched line are often
found only in light densities away from the drainage. Thinly scattered individual weeds, such as
those found in sagebrush on alluvial fans, are not included in Figure 6.
Table 6 provides general locations for the eight noxious weed species found in the BLM parcel.
The most prevalent listed weeds are houndstongue, common mullein, musk thistle and Canada
thistle. Other, non - listed, weeds occasionally seen are Kochia (Kochia scoparia), Iambsquarters
(Chenopodium berlandieri), and Russian thistle (Salsola iberica). Locations of specific weed
infestations are found in Table 7.
Table 6. Observed Noxious Weed Locations in or near the Project Area.
Common'Name*
cienti c Name;
USDA Symbol': `
General Ldeation and Comments •
Bull Thistle
Cirsium vulgare
C1VU
Found very thinly scattered near the riparian areas.
Canada ThistleB
Cirsium arvense
CIAR4
Intermittent light to moderate density infestations all along Clear Creek
Cheatgrassc
Bromus tectorurn
BRTE
Thinly scattered throughout much of the survey area in sagebrush.
Common Burdockc
Arctium minus
ARMI2
May be present. No plants were found in the survey area but it is found
scattered north and south of the BLM parcel along Clear Creek.
Common Mullein('
Verbascum thapsus
VETH
Common along Clear Creek and its flood plain. Occasionally found in
small dense patches. Often associated with musk thistle. May be found
scattered thinly in the sagebrush bordering the riparian area and along
Clear Creek road.
HoundstongueB
Cynoglossum officinale
CYOF
Common along Clear Creek. Can also be found thinly scattered along
roadways, in brushy areas, and in the unnamed gulch riparian area. May
occur on drier sites under the shade of shrubs such as oakbrush.
Musk Thistles
Carduus nutans
CANU4
Generally spread very thinly along Clear Creek in the houndstongue /
common mullein polygon but four dense infestations were found in the
project area.
TamariskB
Tamarix spp.
TARA
Only two plants growing near each other along Clear Creek.. Can be
found in thicker concentrations north and south of the BLM parcel.
* Government weed listing: Bold - Garfield County, Colorado. Superscript - Colorado State B or C list.
WestWater Engineering Page 13 of 20 pages
9/11/2008
w 1,,.1 05fi - f `" ` AMCIWi` fTirs,•l it E-f§ gfi Ell,k. .'R Yl'iL/ IIIPU4 i'1T* � "- .'ifs "v
Figure 7. Small portion of a common mullein and musk thistle infestation.
Table 7 - Specific Noxious Weed Locations
(Garfield County listed weeds in bold)
Weed
UTM Easting
g
CommM
entComments
Common Mullein /
Musk Thistle
0724590
4386603
100 common mullein and 200 musk thistle
in 80 x 25 ft. (Figure 7).
0724657
4386514
50 mullein and 200 thistle in a 50 ft. circle
0724667
4386479
100 mullein and 200 thistle in 100 x 30 ft.
Musk Thistle
0724642
4386449
Dense in 80 x 20 ft.
Tamarisk
0724604
4386592
Two plants near Clear Creek
5.0 Waters of the United States
5.1 Background Information
Waters of the United States includes lands likely to be within the jurisdiction of the COE under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the United States includes wetlands and drainage
WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
courses (including streams and ephemeral drainages that connect to streams via surface flow or
subsurface connection), ponds, lakes and springs.
Clear Creek has many tributaries; some have active flows year- round, some carry water during
the snowmelt/spring runoff, others carry water only during major storm events. On many of the
steep slopes on both sides of Clear Creek there are drainages that apparently carry significant
volumes of water off the near - vertical cliffs and down to the valley floor. Many have prominent
alluvial fans with no apparent stream channel that connects to Clear Creek. The water apparently
is absorbed into the rocky, porous alluvial fan and is carried under the surface.
5.2 Procedures
WestWater biologists recorded drainages that were actively flowing or had evidence of flow
(ordinary high water).
5.3 Observations
The topographic map in Figure 1 illustrates the drainages in the project area. No drainages other
than Clear Creek and the unnamed drainage in the southwest quarter, indicated by a blue line on
the topographic map, were found to be COE jurisdictional waterways.
5.4 Streams, Drainages, Ponds
Clear Creek is considered to be a perennial waterway and falls under the jurisdiction of the COE
(Figure 8). Clear Creek was flowing throughout the BLM parcel and measured 14 feet wide by
12 inches deep at one location (12S 724514mE 4386689m t).
WestWater Engineering
Figure 8. Clear Creek and associated fringe wetlands.
Page 15 of 20 pages
9/11/2008
The only flowing side drainage was an intermittent stream in the unnamed gulch in Section 21 at
the southwest quarter of the BLM parcel (Figures 9 and 10). The stream measured about 2 feet
wide by 't" deep at about 6400 feet elevation (12S 724394rnE 4386465mN) and disappeared
underground before reaching the mouth of the gulch. No evidence of surface flow was found
extending onto the alluvial fan between the gulch and Clear Creek,
Figure 9. Unnamed gulch in southwest corner.
Figure 10. Intermittent stream in the gulch at left.
The drainage in the north center portion of the BLM parcel (Section 22), indicated by a blue line
on the topographic map (UTM 12S 0724508mE 4386706mN), did not have any evidence of
ordinary high water (Figure 11).
Figure 11. No evidence of ordinary high water along the drainage line in
Section 22. Clear Creek riparian area is in the background.
WestWater Engineering
Page 16 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
5.5 Wetlands
WWE biologists found hydrophytic vegetation in sufficient quantity to indicate fringe wetland
along the length of Clear Creek. The wetland averages about 24 inches wide on either bank. No
other wetlands were found on the BLM parcel (Figure 8).
6.0 Other Wildlife Observations
During the course of the surveys along the length Clear Creek, many wildlife species and sign
were observed and recorded, including wild turkeys, elk, deer, garter snakes, bear sign, and song
birds. Biologists encountered fresh bear droppings in Deer Park Gulch, about 5 miles southeast
of the BLM parcel. The BLM parcel provides excellent habitat for bears. The stands of
chokecherry, serviceberry, and currents had abundant fruit in August 2008. These and other food
sources are important, especially in the fall as bears attempt to gain weight prior to winter.
7.0 Summary and Recommendations
Biological surveys conducted by WWE biologists identified two raptor species present within 1/2
of the BLM parcel and documented nesting by one species. Eight noxious weed species were
found. Waters of the United States were mapped.
7.1 Raptors
Activities associated with energy development in Clear Creek have the potential to impact raptor
populations. In order to reduce the potential for impacts, it is important that construction and
drilling activities be scheduled such that they do not interfere with breeding, nesting and brood -
rearing activities. The following recommendations should be considered Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for minimizing the effects of energy development on raptor populations.
7.1.1 Timing Limitations
In areas of known raptor nesting, construction and drilling activities should not be scheduled
between territory establishment and dispersal of young from the nest. If work is planned during
the nesting season, areas of known and potential nesting should be inventoried by qualified
biologists. Timing limitation restrictions should then be considered and applied to all active
nests. WWE recommends temporal and spatial restrictions for activities near active nests based
on BLM stipulations (BLM 1997), Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) recommendations
(CDOW 2008), and literature review of nesting season timing for raptors in the Roan Plateau
region (Andrews and Righter 1992, Kingery 1998, Poole 2005). These recommendations are
summarized in Table 8.
WestWater Engineering Page 17 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
Table 8. Timing limitations and NSO recommendations for active raptor nests
Species Buffer Zone - NSO Seasonal Restriction
Red - tailed Hawk 0.33 mile
Swainson's Hawk 0.25 mile
Sharp - shinned Hawk 0.25 mile
Cooper's Hawk 0.25 mile
Peregrine Falcon 0.5 mile
Prairie Falcon 0.5 mile
Golden Eagle 0.25 mile + alt. nests
Northern Harrier 0.25 mile
American Kestrel *
Flammulated Owl 0.25 mile
Northern Saw -whet Owl 0.25 mile
Northern Pygmy -Owl 0.25 mile
Long -eared Owl 0.25 mile
Great Horned Owl
1 March - 15 July
1 April - 15 August
1 April - 15 August
1 April - 15 August
15 March - 31 July
15 March - 31 July
1 January - 15 July
1 April - 15 August
1 April —1 August
1 March — 1 August
15 March - 15 July
1 March - 15 July
*
* American Kestrels and Great Horned Owls are relatively tolerant of human activity. Keep activity to a minimum
during breeding season.
7.1.2 Habitat Fragmentation and Removal
Fragmentation of wildlife habitat is a concern due to the rapid development of natural gas
resources by a number of private companies. Habitat fragmentation is defined as an increased
partitioning of intact vegetative communities that tends to reduce the suitability for wildlife
occupancy. Fragmentation increases the potential for the establishment of non- native or invasive
species which may out - compete preferred native species. When possible, new infrastructure
should be constructed along existing pipeline and access road corridors to reduce habitat
fragmentation in this area.
Every effort should be made maintain the integrity of forested areas, both in the riparian zone
and on north - facing hillsides, with an emphasis on protecting those areas where raptor nesting is
known to occur. Removal of trees containing raptor nests should be prohibited.
7.1.3 Future Monitoring
Future monitoring of known nest sites as well as continued surveying for new sites may allow
insight into population trends and habitat requirements of species nesting in the region. The
COHA 25 nest has been active the past two breeding seasons and should be checked for activity
in 2009.
WestWater Engineering Page 18 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
7.2 Birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) other than raptors
Future monitoring in the late spring or early summer may produce additional observations of
nesting BOCC.
7.3 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species (TESS) plants
No TESS plants were identified within the BLM parcel but one species does occur about 230 feet
from the northeast corner. Construction activities should avoid disturbing areas where TESS
plants exist.
7.4 Weeds and Invasive Plants
Weeds are so widespread in Clear Creek canyon that managers may feel there is no solution.
However, weed reports previously written by WWE and cited in this report outline specific
measures that can be taken to address the weed issues on the BLM parcel..
7.5 Waters of the United States
To protect the integrity of Clear Creek waters and riparian habitat, precautions need to be taken
when crossing or intersecting the waterways identified. Adequate barriers and filtration methods
should be used to prevent and reduce soil from eroding into the water and riparian areas of Clear
Creek and its tributaries. The Corps of Engineers should be consulted for Standard BMPs used
in construction activities that intersect jurisdictional waterways.
7.6 Bears
In recent years, the CDOW has experienced an increasing number of situations where conflicts
have occurred between black bears and natural gas development. Most often incidents involve
workers that have created problems at campsites (remote man camps) or around drilling sites
where trash has not been protected and bears have been attracted in search of food.
By their nature, black bears are not aggressive and prefer to avoid contact with humans.
However, they are constantly searching for food and if they smell food trash, they can come in
contact with humans. During times of drought or lack of seed/berry production due to frost,
bears will be in a constant search for food. Intentional feeding of bears has occurred in the past
and should never be allowed by employees. Intentional feeding almost always leads to
unanticipated problems including direct contact with humans (human bites, breaking into cabins,
trailers, trucks).
In order to avoid bear problems, all potential sources of food attributable to workers should be
eliminated from access by bears. Any trash containing food items produced on drilling sites and
in man camps needs to be protected from bears. Removal of trash containing food items and
bear -proof trash containers are two possible solutions. This requires aggressive and persistent
action to eliminate the opportunity for bears to obtain food items in and around production sites.
Black bear problems are best prevented by proactive measures rather than attempting to solve an
ongoing problem. The CDOW much prefers avoidance to problem management.
WestWater Engineering Page 19 of 20 pages 9/11/2008
8.0 References
Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and
Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado.
BLM. 1997. Record of Decision and Approved White River Resource Area, Resource
Management Plan. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Meeker, Colorado.
CNHP. 2007. Tracked Vascular Plant Species.
URL: http: / /www.cnhp. colostate .edu /trackinglvascular.html
CDOW. 2008. "Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors."
Unpublished Report.
Kennedy, P. L., and D. W. Stahlecker.1993. Responsiveness of nesting northern goshawks to
taped broadcasts of 3 conspecific calls. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:249 -257.
Kingery, H. E. (editor).1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and
Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver.
NRCS. 2008. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation
Service, URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Poole, A. (Editor). 2005. The Birds of North America Online:
http : //bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY
Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce Jr., G.
Goodwin, R. Smith and E. L Fisher.1992. Management recommendations for the northern
goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM- GTR -217, USDA,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO,
USA.
Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997.
Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the
U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage
Program.
FWS. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Weber, W. A. and R. C, Whittmnann. 2001. Colorado Flora: Western Slope. Third Edition.
University of Colorado Press, Boulder, CO
WestWater Engineering, May 2008. "Chevron Clear Creek — Deer Park to Tom Creek
Segment, Integrated Weed Management Plan, Garfield County, Colorado."
WestWater Engineering, May 2007, "Clear Creek Biological Survey."
Whitson, T. (editor) 1996. Weeds of the West. The Western Society of Weed Science in
cooperation with the Western U.S. Land Grant Universities Cooperative Extension Services.
University of Wyoming.
WestWater Engineering Page 20 of 20 pages 9/11/2008