HomeMy WebLinkAboutVegetation ManagementJuly 15, 2014
Garfield County
Andy Schwaller
Garfield County Community Development Department
RE: Grading Permit GRAD -3306 Linn Operating -Mesa Pipeline
Vegetation Management
Dear Andy,
The Noxious Weed Inventory and Management plan and proposed seed mixes for this project are acceptable. The
surface area to be reseeded has been quantified as 687,000 square feet or 15.83 acres. The Community Development
Department has requested a revegetation security of $39,582.50.
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the
Reclamation Standards section in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. The Reclamation Standards at the date
of permit issuance are cited in Sections 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution
#2002-94).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Steve Anthony
Garfield County Vegetation Manager
0375 County Road 352, Bldg 2060
Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Fax: 970.625-5939
Linn Operating, Inc. — Mesa Pipeline
Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan
Garfield County, Colorado
Cover photo: Looking north along proposed alignment on Old Mountain.
Prepared for:
Linn Operating, Inc.
Prepared by:
WestWater Engineering
2516 Foresight Circle #1
Grand Junction, CO 81505
June 2014
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
At the request of Linn Operating, Inc., WestWater Engineering has prepared an Integrated Vegetation and
Noxious Weed Management Plan for the proposed Mesa Pipeline project. The proposed waterline would
be located on private lands in Garfield County consisting of Sections 31 and 32, Township 5 South (T5S),
Range 95 West (R95W); Section 36, T5S, R95W; and Sections 2 and 3, T6S, R96W, Sixth Principal
Meridian (Figure 1). The current primary uses of the project area are rangeland, natural gas development,
and wildlife habitat.
The proposed 12" steel pipeline is located on a portion of EnCana's North Parachute Ranch known as Old
Mountain, and will transport freshwater and produced water in both directions between the Old Mountain
CDP and the tie-in point along Garfield County Road 215 in Parachute Creek (Figure I). Elevation of the
project ranges from approximately 8,175 feet near the CDP to 5,775 feet in Parachute Creek. The
pipeline will be buried on top of the mountain and will remain on the surface where it traverses the steep
slope down to CR 215.
1.2 General Survey Information
Pedestrian surveys of the project area were conducted on October 24, 2013, after the active growing
season for most plants in the project area. The small amount of snow received prior to the survey had
mostly melted off and was only a minor hindrance to weed detection efforts.
Identification of plant species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Kershaw et al. 1998,
Whitson et al. 2001, CWMA 2007, Weber and Wittmann 2012). Noxious weed locations were recorded
with the aid of handheld global positioning system (GPS) receivers using NAD83 map datum, with all
coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system in Zone 12.
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 at the project site (NRCS 2013).
2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING
2.1 Terrain
The terrain near the eastem terminus of the alignment includes the rolling ridge tops typical of the Roan
Plateau above the rim of Parachute Creek. Continuing west, the pipeline traverses the rim itself and down
the exposed shale talus of the Green River formation. The western terminus of the pipeline is at the toe of
the slope in the Parachute Creek valley.
2.2 Vegetation
Vegetation in the mountain top portion of the survey area is comprised primarily of antelope bitterbrush,
Gambel oak, mountain mahogany, sagebrush, servicebeny, and snowberry. The grass/forb understory
includes typical species for the area including bluegrass, creeping barberry, elk sedge, Indian ricegrass,
prickly pear cactus, rabbitbrush, slender wheatgrass, sulphur -flower buckwheat, tailcup lupine, western
wheatgrass, yarrow. The pipeline route intersects a sparse stand of Douglas -fir where it begins the
descent to Parachute Creek. Vegetation on the steep slope above CR 215 is sparser, consisting of
fourwing saltbush, Gambel oak, Indian ricegrass, oceanspray, and various wheatgrass species.
3.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS
3.1 Introduction to Noxious Weeds
Most noxious weed species in Colorado were introduced, mostly from Eurasia, either unintentionally or
as ornamentals that established wild populations. These plants compete aggressively with native
vegetation and tend to spread quickly because the environmental factors that normally control them are
WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 11 June 2014
absent. Disturbed soils, altered native vegetation communities, and areas with increased soil moisture
often create prime conditions for weed infestations. The primary vectors that spread noxious weeds
include humans, animals, water, and wind.
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 maintain a list of'
plants that are considered to be noxious weeds. The State of Colorado noxious weed List segregates
noxious weed species based on priority for control:
1. List A species must be eradicated whenever detected.
2. List B species' spread should be halted; may be designated for eradication in some counties.
3. List C species are widespread and the State will assist local jurisdictions which choose to manage
those weeds.
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 (Garfield County 2013) (Appendix A). 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 that identified landowners submit an
integrated weed management plan for their properties (Garfield County 2002).
3.2 Observations
The noxious weed survey encompassed all areas within 50 meters of the proposed pipeline alignment.
Noxious weeds were found on top of Old Mountain and on the slope just above CR 215, primarily in
areas where the alignment is adjacent to previously disturbed areas. The undisturbed native vegetation
within the survey area is relatively free of noxious weeds. Noxious weed species observed include
houndstongue, common mullein, musk thistle and Canada thistle. Cheatgrass is prevalent on the steep
slope above CR 215 and mapping was impractical due to the size of the infestation and difficult
navigability of the terrain. Since surveys were conducted after the growing season it is possible that other
species exist which were not detected. Noxious weeds in this category are most likely to include bulbous
bluegrass, field bindweed, jointed goatgrass, redstem filaree, and Russian knapweed. Noxious weeds
detected during the survey are illustrated in Figure 2 and summarized in Appendix B.
In areas where soil disturbances have created growing conditions that favor non-native vegetation, several
unlisted nuisance weed species have become established. These plants can negate revegetation efforts and
cause financial losses due to decreased seeding success and associated costs of replanting. The presence
of these plants creates increased competition for resources and can negatively affect desirable native plant
species. Plants in this category include kochia, and Russian thistle.
3.3 Integrated Weed Management
Control of invasive species is a difficult task and requires intensive on-going control measures. Care must
be taken to avoid negatively impacting desirable plant communities and inviting infestation by other
pioneer invaders. Weed management is best achieved by employing varied methods over several growing
seasons, including inventory (surveys), direct treatments, prevention through best management practices,
monitoring of treatment efficacy, and subsequent detection efforts. Weed management is often limited to
controlling existing infestations and prevention of further infestations, rather than eradication, but through
effective weed management practices eradication can be possible in small to medium sized weed
populations.
WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 11 June 2014
Assessment of the existence and extent of noxious weeds in an area is essential for the development of an
integrated weed management plan. This report provides an initial assessment of the occurrence of noxious
weeds for the project area. In order to continue effective management of noxious weeds, further inventory
and analysis is necessary to 1) determine the effectiveness of the past treatment strategies; 2) modify the
treatment plan, if necessary; and 3) detect new infestations early, which would result in more economical
and effective treatments.
3.4 Prevention of Noxious Weed Infestations
Weed management can be costly, and heavy infestations may exceed the economic threshold for practical
treatment. Prevention is an especially valuable and economical strategy for noxious weed management.
Several simple practices should be employed to prevent weed infestations. The following practices will
prevent infestation and thereby reduce costs associated with noxious weed control:
• Prior to delivery to the site, all equipment and vehicles, including maintenance vehicles, should
be thoroughly cleaned of soils from previous sites which may be contaminated with noxious
weeds.
• If working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of potentially
seed -bearing soils and vegetative debris at the infested area prior to moving to uncontaminated
terrain.
• Avoid driving vehicles through areas where weed infestations exist.
• Use of weed free materials such as mulch and seed.
3.5 Treatment and Control of Noxious Weed Infestations
The landowner (Encana) has adopted an internal revegetation and reclamation program for its North
Parachute Ranch property (WestWater 2009). The following general control methods for the most likely
species that may exist in the project area are provided for reference (Table 1).
Table 1. General noxious weed control methods for species in the prolect area.
Common Name
Scientific Name
USDA Symbol
Type*
Control Methods
Downy brome, cheatgrass
Bromus tectorum
BRIE
A
Prevent seed production. Apply herbicides in fall and spring
in large monocultures where there are few if any desirable
grasses. Till when plants are in the seedling stage followed by
seeding with native cool -season grasses. Avoid overgrazing.
Best management practices are most effective in preventing
and controlling infestations.
Field bindweed
Convolvulus arvensis
COAR4
P
Deplete energy reserves in roots. Herbicide treatment when
plants are beginning to flower. Biological controls are
available and fairly effective for large populations growing in
sunny dry conditions. Tillage is not effective and will result
in denser populations.
Bulbous bluegrass
Poa bulbosa
POBU
P
Prevent seed production; deplete energy reserves in
underground bulbs. Apply herbicide from fall to spring to
plants not more than 6" tall. Some herbicides can be applied
as a pre -emergent treatment in the fall. Tillage in the spring
can be effective in some areas. Seed with competitive grasses.
WestWater Engineering
Page 3 of 11
June 2014
for species in the project area.
Common Name
Scientific Name
USDA Symbol
Type*
Control Methods
Canada thistle
Cirsium arvense
CIAR4
P
Prevent seed production; deplete energy reserves in roots.
Small infestations should be treated aggressively with
herbicides that translocate to the root system. In large
infestations, mow three times per growing season, followed
by herbicide treatment in the fall. Biological control agents
are available but ineffective in populations less than 5 acres
in size or in wet areas. Tillage is not effective and will result
in denser populations.
Common mulleinB
Verbascum thapsus
VETH
Prevent seed production. Herbicide application or mechanical
removal when plants are in the rosette stage, spring or
summer. Before spraying, remove flower or seed heads from
plants that have bolted. Sever root at least 2" below soil level.
Houndstongue, Gypsyflower
Cynoglossum offcinale
CYOF
B
Prevent seed production. Herbicide application or mechanical
removal when plants are in the rosette stage, spring or
summer. Before spraying, remove and bag flower or seed
heads from plants that have bolted. Sever root at least 2"
below soil level.
Jointed goatgrass
Aegilops cylindrica
AECY
A
Prevent seed production. A complex management strategy of
tillage, planting desirable species and herbicide treatment
should be designed for specific areas of infestation. Target
seedlings in the spring for most effective control. Use tillage
where possible to reduce seed bank by bringing some seeds
up to the germination zone and burying others. Follow tillage
with planting of desirable species
Prevent seed production. Herbicide application or mechanical
removal when plants are in the rosette stage, spring or
summer. Before spraying, remove and bag flower or seed
heads from plants that have bolted. Sever root at least 2"
below soil level. Biological control agents are available but
ineffective in populations Tess than 5 acres in size.
Musk (Nodding plumeless)B
thistle
Carduus nutans
CANU4
Redstem filaree
Erodium cicutarium
ERCI
A
Prevent seed production. Apply herbicides in the fall or
spring when plants are in rosette stage. Hand digging in the
rosette stage when soil is moist can be effective for small,
isolated populations. Preventing introduction of seeds through
clean vehicles and careful management of soil stocks can help
rcduce introductions. Seeding with competitive grasses and
avoiding creation of open, bare areas aids in control.
Russian knapweed
Acroptilon repens
ACRE3
P
Prevent seed production, deplete energy reserves in roots.
Use an herbicide that translocates to the root system. Apply
herbicides in the fall for best results; spring treatment when
flowers just start to open is also effective. Repeated mowing
to stress plants followed by herbicide treatment in fall may be
effective in some areas. Seed with competitive grasses and
avoid overgrazing.
* Type: A = annual; B = biennial; P = perennial; Bold = Garfield County List
WestWater Engineering
Page 4 of 11
June 2014
3.6 Recommended Treatment Strategies
The following treatment strategies are presented for reference. It is important to know whether the weed
species being managed is an annual, biennial, or perennial to select strategies that effectively control and
eliminate the target. Treatment strategies vary depending on plant type, which are summarized in Table 2.
Herbicides should not always be the first treatment of choice when other methods can be effectively
employed.
Table 2. Treatment Strategies for Noxious Weeds
Annual and Biennial Noxious Weeds
Target: Prevent seed production
1. Hand grub (pull), hoe, till, cultivate in rosette stage and before flowering or seed maturity. If flowers or
seeds develop, cut and bag seed heads.
2. Cut roots with a spade 2"-3" below soil level.
3. Treat with herbicide in seedling, rosette or bolting stage, before flowering.
4. Mow biennials after bolting stage but before seed set. Mowing annuals will not prevent flowering but
can reduce total seed production.
Perennial Noxious Weeds
Target: Deplete nutrient reserves in root system, prevent seed production
I. 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, rather, seed production
should be reduced. Many studies have shown that mowing perennials and spraying the regrowth 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 or practical. Most perennial roots can sprout from pieces only 0.5
inch — 1.0 inch 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)
Some weeds, particularly annuals and biennials, can develop resistance to herbicides. The ability to
quickly develop immunity to herbicides, especially when they are used incorrectly, makes it imperative to
use the proper chemicals at the correct time in the specified concentration according to the product label.
Excessive application, either in frequency or concentration, can result in top kill without significantly
affecting the root system. Repeated excessive applications may result in resistant phenotypes.
3.7 Noxious Weed Management — Best Management Practices
Construction: The following practices should be adopted for any construction project to reduce the costs
of noxious weed control and aid in prevention efforts:
• Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be cleaned of soils remaining from previous
construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds.
WestWater Engineering
Page 5 of 11 June 2014
• Equipment and material handling should be done on established sites to reduce the area and
extent of soil compaction.
• In all cases, temporary disturbance should be kept to an absolute minimum.
• 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.
• If stored longer than one growing season, topsoil stockpiles should be seeded with non-invasive
sterile hybrid grasses.
• 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
(seed vector) and to ensure that soil moisture conditions are not impacted after construction so
that native plants can re-establish from the existing seed bank.
• If working in weed infested sites, equipment should be cleaned of potentially seed -bearing soils
and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain.
• After construction, disturbed areas should be immediately reseeded with an appropriate seed mix.
Herbicides: Many of the listed noxious weed species in Colorado can be controlled with commercially
available herbicides. Annual and biennial weeds are best controlled at the pre -bud stage after germination
or in the spring of the second year. Selective herbicides are recommended to minimize damage to
desirable grass species.
It is important that applicators adhere to concentrations specified on herbicide containers. Herbicides
generally do not work better at higher concentrations. Herbicide failures are frequently related to high
concentrations that result in top kill before the active ingredient can be transported to the roots through
the nutrient translocation process. If directed on the herbicide label, a surfactant or other adjuvant should
be added to the tank.
Grazing: In the event grazing is allowed in the project area, it should be deferred in reclaimed areas until
revegetation of desirable species has been successfully established and seeded plants have had the
opportunity to reproduce.
Monitoring: Areas where noxious weed infestations are identified and treated should be inspected over
time to ensure that control methods are working to reduce and suppress the identified infestation. The
sites should be monitored until the infestations are eliminated. These inspections can then be used to
prioritize future wced control efforts.
3.8 Commercial Applicator Recommendations
A certified commercial pesticide applicator licensed in rangeland and/or right-of-way/industrial weed
control (depending on site characteristics) is a necessary choice for herbicide control efforts. An
applicator has the full range of knowledge, skills, equipment, and experience desired when dealing with
tough noxious weeds. In addition, the purchase and use of restricted use herbicides requires a Colorado
pesticide applicator license.
4.0 REVEGETATION — RECLAMATION
The landowner (Encana) has adopted an internal revegetation and reclamation program for its North
Parachute Ranch property (WestWater 2009). The following sections provide project specific
recommendations for reclamation of this site based on soil types and vegetative communities present.
WcstWater Engineering Page 6 of 11 June 2014
Soil Preparation
Compaction can reduce water infiltration and also hinder the penetration of the sprouting seed. Practices
that will reduce compaction and prepare the seedbed include: scarification, tillage, or harrowing
(Colorado Natural Areas Program et al. 1998). No special soil preparation techniques are anticipated to
be necessary as soil compaction should not be an issue along the pipeline alignment if typical topsoil
management practices for projects of this nature are employed.
Soil Amendments
Soil amendments for reclamation using fertilizer containing nitrogen can disproportionately benefit
undesirable annual plants (Perry et al. 2010). If the company determines the use of soil amendments to be
beneficial, the type and rate should be based on soil samples near the site. Application of 500 to 800
lbs/ac of Sustane 4-6-4 organic fertilizer, or a similar product, is a generic starting point for soil
amendments at high elevations of the Roan Plateau.
A potentially beneficial alternative method to enhance reclamation success, particularly where there is
poor or destroyed topsoil, is the application of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). These
fungi, mostly of the genus Glomus, are symbiotic with about 80 percent of all vegetation. Endo-
mycorrhizal fungi arc associated mostly with grasses and forbs and could be helpful in reclamation. In
symbiosis, the fungi can increase water and nutrient transfer capacity of the host root system (Barrow and
McCaslin 1995). Over-the-counter commercial products are available, and the best products should
contain more than one fimgus species.
Seed Mixture
With proper topsoil handling, the higher elevation portions of the project should revegetate well with
native plant species included in the seed mix recommended below. The steep shale talus slopes below the
Parachute Creek rim would be extremely difficult to revegetate and the plan to use a surface pipeline in
this area will help mitigate impacts to native vegetation in that area.
The recommended seed mix (Table 3) is adapted from Encana's NPR Reclamation Plan (WestWater
2009). This seed mix is well suited for the portion of the alignment above the rim where the pipeline
would be buried, and consists of perennial native grasses and forbs that should establish well, protect
topsoil, and provide a basis for rehabilitation for the site upon reclamation.
Table 3. Recommended seed menu for upper zone disturbances.
Species
Variety (cultivar)
Seeding Rate
(pure live seed/acre)
Grasses
Slender wheatgrass
San Luis
3.0 lbs
Mountain brome
Garnet
2.0 lbs
Nodding brome
-
2.0 lbs
Idaho fescue or Letterman
needlegrass
1.0 lbs
Forbs
Rocky Mountain penstemon
-
1.0 lbs
Cicer milkvetch
-
1.0 lbs
Utah sweetvetch
-
1.0 lbs
Western yarrow
-
0.5 lbs
American vetch
-
1.0 lbs
Shrubs
Antelope bitterbrush
-
2.0 lbs
Total
14.5 lbs pls/ac
WestWater Engineering
Page 7 of 11
June 2014
Seeding Methods
Drill seeding would be the most appropriate and economical method for seeding the majority of the
project area. Hydroseeding or hand -broadcast seeding at twice the recommended drill seed rate is
recommended for steep slopes or for smaller areas where drill seeding would be impractical or dangerous.
Mulching
Crimped straw mulch would be the most cost effective and practical method of mulching areas prone to
erosion after drill seeding this site. No mulching is recommended for areas that are hydroseeded. Potential
detrimental effects of mulching include the introduction of weed species and the establishment of non-
native cereal grains. Use of a certified weed -free sterile wheat hybrid would limit these effects.
BMPs
Excelsior wattles or straw bales at the toe of steep slopes and water discharge points are appropriate to
help control water velocity flowing off the alignment during storm runoff. Terracing slopes near or
exceeding 3:1 will reduce erosion, benefitting topsoil and seed retention and thereby improving
revegetation success.
5.0 REFERENCES
Barrow, J. R., and B. 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, INT -
GTR -338, Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain
Resource Station, 275 pp.
Colorado Natural Areas Program, Colorado State Parks, Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
1998. Native Plant Revegetation Guide for Colorado. Available online:
http: //www.parks. state.co.us/S i teCol lection Images/parks/Programs/CNAP/CNAPPubl ications/Re
vegetationGuide/revegetation.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2014
CWMA. 2007. S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran, S. Elzinga, J. Powell, I. Schonle, K. Uhing. Noxious
Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial.
Garfield County. 2002. Garfield County Vegetation Management and Garfield County Weed Advisory
Board. Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan, Resolution #2002-94, October 21.
Garfield County. 2013. Vegetation Management Section — Noxious Weed List. Available online:
http://www.garfield-county.com/vegetation-management/noxious-weed-list.aspx. Accessed
Feburary 4, 2014
Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing,
Auburn, Washington.
NRCS. 2013. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service,
URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Perry, L.G., D.M. Blumenthal, T.A. Monaco, M.W. Paschke, and E.F. Redente. 2010. Immobilizing
nitrogen to control plan invasion. Oecologia: 163:12-24.
Sirota, J. M. 2004. Best management practices for noxious weeds of Mesa County. Colorado State
University, Cooperative Extension Tri River Arca, Grand Junction, Colorado. URL:
http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/TRA/Weeds/weedmgmt.html
WestWater Engineering Page 8 of I 1 June 2014
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.
Weber, W.A., and R.C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Westem Slope. Fourth Edition, University Press
of Colorado, Boulder.
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 — 9ih edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation
with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie.
WestWater. 2009. North Parachute Ranch Integrated Vegetation Management Guidance. Reclamation
and Noxious Weed Control. Encana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. Prepared by WestWater
Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado.
WestWater Engineering
Page 9 of 11 June 2014
Project Location
Appendix A
Garfield County Noxious Weed List
Species
Common name
Species
Code
Growth
" Form
Life History
State
Listing
Acroptilon repens
Russian knapweed
ACRE3
Forb
Perennial
B
Aegilops
cylindrica
Jointed goatgrass
AECY
Grass
Annual
B
Arctium minus
Common (Lesser)
burdock
ARMI2
Forb
Biennial
C
Cardaria draba
Hoary cress, Whitetop
CADR
Forb
Perennial
B
Carduus
acanthoides
Spiny plumeless
thistle
CAAC
Forb
Biennial / Winter
Annual
B
Carduus nutans
Musk (Nodding
plumeless) thistle
CANU4
Forb
Biennial
B
Centaurea dfusa
Diffuse knapweed
CEDI3
Forb
Perennial
B
Centaurea
maculosa
Spotted knapweed
CEMA4
Forb
Perennial
B
Centaurea
solstitialis
Yellow starthistle
CESO3
Forb
Annual
A
Chrysanthemum
leucanthemum
Oxeye daisy
CHLE80
Forb
Perennial
B
Cichorium
intybus
Chicory
CIIN
Forb
Perennial
C
Cirsium arvense
Canada thistle
CIAR4
Forb
Perennial
B
Cynoglossum
officinale
Houndstongue'
Gypsyflower
CYOF
Forb
Biennial
B
Elaeagnus
angustifolia
Russian olive
ELAN
Tree
Perennial
B
Euphorbia esula
Leafy spurge
EUES
Forb
Perennial
B
Linaria
dalmatica
Dalmatian toadflax,
broad-leaved
LIDA
Forb
Perennial
B
Linaria vulgaris
Yellow toadflax
LIVU2
Forb
Perennial
B
Lythrum salicaria
Purple loosestrife
LYSA2
Forb
Perennial
A
Onopordum
acanthium
Scotch thistle
ONAC
Forb
Biennial
B
Tamarix
parviflora
Smallflowcr tamarisk
TAPA4
Tree
Perennial
B
Tamarix
ramosissima
Salt cedar, Tamarisk
TARA
Tree
Perennial
B
WestWater Engineering
Appendix A
June 2014
Appendix 13. Noxious weed locations in Linn Operatin2's Mesa Pipeline project area
Species
UTM Zone
Easting
Northing
Number of plants
Canada Thistle
12
750833
4383291
20
Common Mullein
12
748534
4383752
1
Common Mullein
12
748577
4383815
2
Common Mullein
12
750245
4382939
I
Common Mullein
12
750406
4382888
3
Common Mullein
12
750627
4382942
2
Common Mullein
12
750633
4382977
8
Common Mullein
12
750706
4383065
14
Conunon Mullein
12
750833
4383306
20
Common Mullein
12
750917
4383443
3
Cmmnon Mullein
12
750920
4383391
1
Common Mullein
12
750948
4383365
20
Houndstongue
12
748406
4383801
1
Houndstongue
12
749631
4383166
200
Houndstongue
12
750113
4382960
2
Houndstongue
12
750216
4382950
5
Houndstongue
12
750243
4382941
1
Houndstongue
12
750267
4382938
1
Houndstongue
12
750356
4382929
1
Houndstongue
12
750391
4382923
1
Houndstongue
12
750469
4382928
1
Houndstongue
12
750529
4382933
1
Houndstongue
12
750628
4382973
1
Houndstongue
12
750826
4383287
5
Houndstongue
12
750832
4383362
1
Houndstongue
12
750849
4383309
1
Houndstongue
12
750884
4383349
3
Houndstongue
12
750890
4383367
2
Houndstongue
12
750902
4383342
1
Houndstongue
12
750953
4383383
5
Houndstongue
12
750961
4383365
30
Houndstongue
12
750979
4383381
2
Houndstongue
12
750991
4383397
3
Musk Thistle
12
748519
4383845
10
Musk Thistle
12
748539
4383832
1
Musk Thistle
12
748540
4383843
3
Musk Thistle
12
748562
4383850
11
WestWater Engineering Appendix B June 2014