HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-GarCo_IVNWMP_011712Western Expansion Project II (WEP II)
Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan
Garfield County, Colorado
Cover Photo: Houndstongue and common mullein infestation along proposed pipeline alignment in
Garfield County.
Prepared for:
Enterprise Mid-America Pipeline (Enterprise MAPL)
Prepared by:
WestWater Engineering
2516 Foresight Circle #1
Grand Junction, CO 81505
January 2012
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
At the request of Enterprise Mid-America Pipeline (Enterprise MAPL), WestWater Engineering
(WWE) has prepared an Integrated Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan for the
portion of the Western Expansion Project II (WEP II) Pipeline right-of-way (ROW) that lies
within Garfield County, Colorado. A comprehensive Integrated Noxious and Invasive Weed
Management Plan was prepared for Enterprise in 2010 to meet the requirements for the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) and other Federal, State and local agencies and was intended to be
used for all current and future Enterprise projects within the state of Colorado (WWE 2010).
This report provides a summary of the comprehensive weed plan specific to the portion of the
WEP II within Garfield County.
The legal location of the pipeline from north to south within Garfield County is as follows:
Sixth Central Meridian
T5S, R103W, Sections 6, 5, 8, 17, 21, 28, 33, 34, and 35
T6S, R104W, Sections 6, 7, 18, 13, 24, 25, 26 and 35
T7S, R104W, Sections 2, 3, 10, 9, and 16
The project would be located on BLM and privately owned lands. Approximately 25 miles
occur within Garfield County. The current primary uses of the area are rangeland, wildlife
habitat, and natural gas development. Enterprise plans to construct the pipeline during the
summer and fall of 2012.
The proposed pipeline alignment begins approximately 1.5 miles south of Thompson, Utah, and
travels east paralleling Interstate -70 (I-70) to just east of exit 227, where the pipeline crosses the
interstate and heads northeast. The proposed pipeline then parallels Highway 6, where it crosses
into Colorado before turning north and paralleling Mesa County Road 4 and Garfield County
Road 201 (Baxter Pass Road) along West Salt Creek to Atchee, Colorado. From Atchee, the
pipeline traverses north over Baxter Pass and then follows West Evacuation Creek to Evacuation
Creek then to Dragon Station near Dragon, Utah. The elevation ranges from 4,500 feet to 8,500
feet.
1.2 General Survey Information
Noxious weed surveys were conducted along the proposed pipeline during the summer of 2011.
Terrain, soils, and vegetation communities in the project area are discussed in the WEP II
Biological Survey Report, which was prepared by WWE (WWE 2011). Survey findings and
locations of noxious weeds were originally described in the WEP II Biological Survey Report,
and are also provided in this report (Appendix A). Additionally, this report provides
recommendations for the management of noxious weeds found along the proposed pipeline.
WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 14 January 2012
2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING
2.1 Terrain
The terrain varies from rolling hillsides that rise to flat-topped mesas to greasewood flats surrounded by
steep -walled canyons where the pipeline parallels West Salt Creek. The steepest terrain along the pipeline
alignment within Garfield County is found west of Atchee, where the alignment travels west and over
Baxter Pass. Elevations range from about 5,000 feet at the southern end of the Garfield County line to
about 8,500 feet at the top of Baxter Pass. The proposed pipeline crosses West Salt Creek several times as
it travels north toward Baxter Pass.
2.2 Vegetation
Vegetation along the proposed pipeline in Garfield County ranges from desert shrub, greasewood
flats, and pinyon juniper woodlands at the lower elevations along West Salt Creek and West
Evacuation Creek to montane shrublands, aspen, Douglas -fir forests near the top of Baxter Pass.
3.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS
3.1 Introduction to Noxious Weeds
Noxious weeds are plants that are not native to an area. Most noxious weed species were
introduced from Europe or Asia, either accidentally or as ornamentals that have escaped. Once
these non -natives are established in a new environment they tend to spread quickly because the
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.
The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (State of Colorado 2005) requires local governing bodies to
develop noxious weed management plans. 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
includes three categories: List A, List B, and List C. List A species must be eradicated
whenever detected. List B species include weeds whose spread should be halted. List C species
are widespread, but the State will assist local jurisdictions which choose to manage those weeds.
Garfield County has developed a weed management program and has compiled a list of noxious
weeds in their county (Appendix B). Garfield County requires that identified landowners submit
an integrated weed management plan for their properties (Garfield County 2002).
WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 14 January 2012
3.2 Observations
Noxious weeds observed along the proposed alignment within Garfield County include
cheatgrass, hoary cress (whitetop), tamarisk, common mullein, houndstongue, bull thistle,
Canada thistle, common burdock, field bindweed, halogeton, and redstem filaree. Tamarisk was
found almost continuously along West Salt Creek, while whitetop was found almost
continuously in the greasewood flats paralleling West Salt Creek. Common mullein, common
burdock, houndstongue, Canada thistle, and bull thistle were found primarily near the slopes on
both the north and south slopes of Baxter Pass. Other weeds were commonly observed
throughout the project area, ranging from dense infestations to more scattered patches (Table 1
and Garfield County Figures 1 through 4).
Whitetop, bull thistle, houndstongue, and tamarisk are Colorado State "B" List weeds. Common
burdock, common mullein, halogeton, redstem filaree, cheatgrass, and field bindweed are
Colorado State "C" List weeds (State of Colorado 2005). Of these, Canada thistle, common
burdock, houndstongue, tamarisk, and whitetop are listed by Garfield County. No other state
listed weeds were detected.
3.3 Integrated Weed Management
Control of invasive species is a difficult task and requires intensive ongoing control measures.
Care must be taken to prevent damage to desirable plant species during treatments to avoid
further infestations by other pioneer invaders. Weed management is best achieved through a
variety of methods over a long period of time including: inventory (surveys), direct treatments,
prevention through best management practices, monitoring of treatment efficacy, and subsequent
detection efforts. Weed management is often primarily to control existing species and to prevent
further infestations (existing and new species) rather than eradication. After successful and
effective management, decreases in infestation size and density can be expected, and after
several years of successful management practices, eradication is sometimes possible.
3.4 Prevention and Assessment of Noxious Weed Infestations
Weed management is costly and heavy infestations may exceed the economic threshold for
practical treatment. Prevention is especially valuable in the case of noxious weed management.
Several simple practices will be employed to prevent most weed infestations. The following
practices will be adopted for any activity to reduce the costs of noxious weed control through
prevention:
Prior to delivery to the site, equipment will be thoroughly cleaned of soils remaining
from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds.
If working in sites with weed seed contaminated soil, equipment will be cleaned of
potentially seed bearing soils and vegetative debris at the infested area prior to moving to
uncontaminated terrain.
All maintenance vehicles will be regularly cleaned of soil.
WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 14 January 2012
Avoid driving vehicles through areas where weed infestations exist.
Assessment of the existence and extent of noxious weeds for 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, resulting in more economical treatments.
3.5 Treatment and Control of Noxious Weed Infestations
Control methods for the listed noxious weed species found in the project area are described in
Table 1.
Table 1. Weed Control Methods
Common Name
Scientific Name
USDA Symbol
Type*
Control Methods
Bull Thistle
Cirsium vulgare
CIVU
B
Weevils and gall flies, grazing by goats and horses, hand
grubbing, tillage or herbicides in rosette stage, repeated mowing
at bolting stage.
Canada Thistle
Cirsium arvense
CIAR4
p
Perennial with high seed production; reseeding with
competitive plants necessary, mowing every 2 weeks over 3
growing seasons, mowing followed by fall herbicide
application, beetles, herbicides in late summer or fall.
Cheatgrass
Bromus tectorum
BRTE
A
Eliminate seed source. Re -vegetate with native grasses.
Herbicide treatment in early spring and fall. Avoid overgrazing.
Common burdock
Arctium minus
ARMI2
B
Combine herbicide or tillage treatment of rosettes with
removal of seed heads from any plants that have bolted.
Preventing dispersal of burs is particularly important.
Common mullein
Verbascum Thapsus
VETH
B
Herbicide application in the fall, plant competitive grasses.
Elimination of seed production and the depletion of the
seedbank by the combination of herbicide and the mechanical
removal of rosettes. It is also very important to remove the seed
heads from plants that have bolted.
Field Bindweed
Convolvulus arvensis
COAR4
p
Herbicides in autumn. Plant competitive grasses.
Field bindweed mite.
Halogeton
Hologeton glomeratus
HAGL
AMechanical
tillage followed by reseeding. Use drought tolerant
species for revegetation.
WestWater Engineering
Page 4 of 14
January 2012
Table 1. Weed Control Methods
Common Name
Scientific Name
USDA Symbol
Type*
Control Methods
Houndstongue
Cynoglossum officinale
CYOF
B
Reseed disturbed sites with fast growing grasses, physical
removal of plants at flowering or early seed formation,
herbicides at pre -bud or rosette stage.
Redstem filaree
Erodium cicutarium
ERCI6
A
Mulching discourages seed germination, and soil solarization
may help to reduce soil seed populations. Prevent seed
production by mechanical treatment: hand -pulling, hoeing,
tilling, or digging.
Tamarisk
Tamarix spp.
TARA
p
Burning is not recommended; repeated flooding of
bottomlands to prevent seedling establishment; hand pulling
seedlings; spray herbicides on basal portion of stems of
young, smooth barked plants, cut larger plants and treat cut
stumps within 30 minutes with concentrated herbicide plus
an adjuvant (remove all stems from site after cutting - they
will re -sprout if in contact with soil); shade intolerant -
promote growth of native riparian species that will shade out
the tamarisk; beetles and mealy bug biological controls not
available on Colorado River drainage at this time.
Whitetop
Cardaria draba
CADR
p
Perennial with high of seed production; herbicides during
bud stage or early flowering.
* Type: A = annual; B = biennial; P = perennial; Bold = Garfield County List
3.6 Recommended Treatment Strategies
It is important to know whether the target is an annual, biennial, or perennial to select strategies
for effective control and eradication. Treatment strategies are different depending on plant type,
and are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Herbicides should not always be the first treatment of
choice when other methods can be effectively employed.
Table 2. Treatment Strategies for 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 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.
WestWater Engineering
Page 5 of 14
January 2012
Table 2. Treatment Strategies for Annual and Biennial Noxious Weeds
Target: Prevent Seed Production
4. Mow biennials after bolting stage but before seed set. Mowing annuals will not prevent
flowering but can reduce total seed production.
(Sirota 2004)
Table 3. 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, 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. 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. Most
misuse is centered on excessive application either in concentration or frequency. This results in
mostly top kill and an immune phenotype.
WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 14 January 2012
Construction: The following best management practices will be adopted for any construction
project to reduce the costs of noxious weed control and aid in prevention efforts:
Top soil, where present, will be segregated from deeper soils and replaced as top soil on
the final grade, a process known as live topsoil handling;
Wetland vegetation will 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 will be placed on all wetland and stream crossings to prevent back
washing or draining of important aquatic resources;
In all cases temporary disturbance will be kept to an absolute minimum;
Equipment and materials handling will be done on established sites to reduce area and
extent of soil compaction;
Disturbances will be reseeded at the appropriate time and with the recommended mix as
outlined in the Reclamation Plan (WWE 2012);
Topsoil stockpiles will be seeded with non-invasive sterile hybrid grasses if stored longer
than one growing season;
Prior to delivery to the site equipment will be cleaned of soils remaining from previous
construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds;
If working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil equipment will be cleaned of
potentially seed -bearing soils and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated
terrain.
In areas with slopes greater than three percent, imprinting of the seedbed 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 will be done prior to seeding
unless the mulch is to be crimped into the soil surface. If broadcast seeding and harrowing,
imprinting will 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: Annual and biennial weeds are best controlled at the pre -bud stage after
germination or in the spring of the second year. Several of the species identified in the survey
are susceptible to commercially available herbicides. Selective herbicides are recommended to
minimize damage to desirable grass species.
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
WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 14 January 2012
through the nutrient translocation process. Most herbicide applications should use a surfactant, if
directed on the herbicide label, or other adjuvant as called for on the herbicide label.
A certified commercial applicator is a good choice for herbicide control efforts. Restricted
herbicides require a state licensed applicator. An applicator has the full range of knowledge,
skills, equipment, and experience desired when dealing with tough noxious weeds.
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.
Mechanical: Small isolated infestations of weed species can often be controlled with cutting and
digging by hand. For dense or more extensive infestations, mechanical treatments can be useful
in combination with chemical control. Effectiveness of mechanical control can often be
increased by severing the root just below the crown of noxious weeds. Weeds that easily re -
sprout from rootstocks, such as Canada thistle and Russian knapweed, may increase rather than
decrease if mechanical control is the only method used.
Grazing: In the event grazing is allowed in the project area it will be deferred in reclaimed areas
until the desired plant species that have been seeded are established.
Alternative Methods: Biological control of noxious weeds is feasible for several of the weeds
found along the proposed pipeline alignment (Table 4). The bindweed mite, Aceria malherbae,
for example, is a microscopic mite imported from southern Europe as a biological control agent
for field bindweed (Hammon 2006). This mite may be useful for reducing field bindweed but
significant results may take several years.
An alternative method to assist revegetation, particularly where there is 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 percent 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 AMF products, which are better adapted to coating seeds when
reseeding 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.
WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 14 January 2012
All Colorado State Forest Salida District tree and shrub plantings include the application of AMF
(Tischler 2006). Most, if not all, Colorado Department of Transportation revegetation/reseeding
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.
Monitoring: Areas where noxious weed infestations are identified and treated will be inspected
over time to ensure that control methods are working to reduce and suppress the identified
infestation. The sites will be monitored until the infestations are eliminated or reduced to
acceptable levels. These inspections can then be used to prioritize future weed control efforts.
4.0 REVEGETATION — RECLAMATION
A comprehensive Reclamation Plan has been prepared for this project by WWE (WWE 2012).
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, INT -GTR -338, Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Forest Service, Intermountain Resource Station, 275 pp.
Garfield County. 2002. Garfield County Vegetation Management and Garfield County Weed
Advisory Board. Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan, Resolution #2002-
94, October 21.
Hammon, Bob, 2006. Managing Field Bindweed with the Bindweed Mite Aceria malherbae.
Cooperative Extension Service, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
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.coopext.colostate.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.
Tischler, Crystal. 2006. District Forester, Colorado State Forest Service, Salida, Colorado.
Personal communication with Bill Clark, WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction,
Colorado.
WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 14 January 2012
WWE. 2010. Integrated Noxious and Invasive Weed Management Plan. Enterprise Gas
Processing, LLC. Prepared by WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado.
WWE. 2011. Biological Survey Report. Enterprise Mid-America Pipeline. Western Expansion
Project II. Prepared by WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado.
WWE. 2012. Reclamation and Monitoring Plan for the Western Expansion Project II (WEP II)
Pipeline ROW. Enterprise Mid-America Pipeline. Prepared by WestWater Engineering,
Grand Junction, Colorado.
WestWater Engineering Page 10 of 14 January 2012
MP T09
Legend
.. Hull thistle
Common buacleidi
Common mullein
1 -Fou ndstang us
[ TSmeTisk
44° h itetop
Whole Milepost
Tenth Milepost
uVEP II Pipeline
Q ROW ioci Foot Survey Afe3
ELM
4�
WestWater Engineering
15
jt
:12
Garfield County, Colorado
Figure 1
Noxious Weeds
Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline
Weed Management Plan
N st4WWater Engineering
CansuIhng Eng int n. & Sur.ntists
•
anuaJanuary 2012
:iLaSari :-ltd. G:SPIEgrtMagr54's•eiT•ps . C _=q In Snarj3U:2rhl:
Legend
IL Bull thistle
Common burdock
7 Common mullein
Houndstongue
Tamarisk
• VA itetop
''thole Milepost
Tenth Milepost
YVEP 11 Pipeline
ROW 100 Foot Survey Area
BLM
WestWater Engineering.
Pag Ir
Garfield County, Colorado
Figure 2
Noxious Weeds
Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline
Weed Management Pian
, MestWater Engineering
_ Consulting Cnginti4ro- & SLlrn*ist.S
,January 2012
as2scurcd g: endmm+Cwcei;s-=.=31 Mya•:.a..r �- r = .._ _n. , -_ =s
DIANIMIIAM
Tt
0
1
Legend
Hull thistle
C-9nads thistle
Common truidoaac
Common mullein
Hounds tongue
Tsrnarisu
NJ h itetap
Nhole Milepost
Tenth t V lepost
WEP 11 Pipeline
ROW 100 Foot Survey..Asea
BUJ
Garfield County, Colorado
Figure3
Noxious Weeds
Enterprise WEP II 16 Inch Pipeline
Weed Management Plan
WestWater Engineering
Ca nsu Iting Eng ine:rrx & Scrrntixts
WestWater Engineering
January 2012
}up SM -•-a x.'r,brprin er,14 LPGmA.gu[Aly tAind YAP 3m32 Jornary �-'i•c=
Sly ��-5�`�"Y a ���'�� r•;,
Foie Blanco County
13E1i-field Cjurir.'
&ullthistle
▪ Canal thistle
• Common burdt�r�
R Common mullein
• liaundstengue
LTerrrarisk
▪ 4Vhitetcp
Whole Milepost
Terrth Milepost
NEP 11 Pipeline
ROW 100 Fout Survey
vea
H LM
Garfield County, Colorado
Figure 4
Noxious Weeds
Enterprise'INEP II 16 Inch Pipeline
Weed Management Plan
/5';= ANestl ater Engineering
Ca nsu (ting Eng ine xra & Scrrntists
rrQsorrz. .00ta:A•rr.s..cri.a '-a a.,srrar c.anWca-•.Croat in,.rrsor ret
Appendix A
Locations of noxious weeds within Garfield County
Northing
Easting
Species
Notes
4363106
673738
Whitetop
25ft x 30ft
4363624
673788
Whitetop
40ft x 40ft
4365074
674031
Tamarisk
40ft x 80ft
4365082
674009
Whitetop
20ft x 30ft
4365116
674011
Whitetop
20ft x 20ft
4365143
674072
Whitetop
50ft x 80ft
4365184
674121
Whitetop
30ft x 50ft
4365413
674288
Whitetop
100ft x 100ft
4366387
675089
Tamarisk
7 plants
4366519
675139
Tamarisk
8 plants
4366552
675195
Tamarisk
4 plants
4366553
675113
Whitetop
50ft x 120ft
4366661
675270
Tamarisk
3 plants
4366710
675296
Tamarisk
10 plants
4366913
675293
Whitetop
100ft x 120ft
4366961
675327
Whitetop
100ft x 100ft
4367159
675410
Whitetop
8ft x 8ft
4367317
675433
Whitetop
4ft x 12ft
4367867
676094
Whitetop
200m x 100m
4368394
676044
Whitetop
20ft x 50ft
4368436
676004
Whitetop
6ft x 15ft
4369163
675994
Whitetop
loft x 80ft
4369245
675934
Whitetop
40ft x 40ft
4369360
675683
Whitetop
500 plants
4369518
675582
Tamarisk
2 plants
4369525
675589
Whitetop
60 plants
4369651
675560
Whitetop
100 plants
4369867
675473
Whitetop
1000 plants
4370021
675456
Whitetop
300 plants
4370136
675360
Whitetop
40 plants
4370160
675359
Whitetop
300 plants
4370288
675282
Whitetop
150 plants
4370338
675248
Whitetop
Continuous patches
4370441
675210
Whitetop
200 plants
4370507
675202
Whitetop
300 plants in 100ft diameter
4370526
675155
Whitetop
100 plants in 40ft diameter
WestWater Engineering
Appendix A
January 2012
Appendix A
Locations of noxious weeds within Garfield County
Northing
Easting
Species
Notes
4371065
674823
Tamarisk
20 plants
4371729
674876
Tamarisk
30 plants in 100ft diameter; CADR continues
in patches along here
4371729
674876
Tamarisk
30 plants in 100ft diameter; CADR continues
in patches along here
4371822
674847
Tamarisk
15 plants
4371876
674830
Tamarisk
Follows an old irrigation ditch
4372067
674841
Whitetop
50 plants
4372075
674842
Tamarisk
Follows an old irrigation ditch
4372137
674950
Whitetop
40 plants in loft diameter
4372144
674932
Tamarisk
20 plants
4372145
674885
Tamarisk
Follows an old irrigation ditch
4372151
674932
Whitetop
6ft x 40ft
4372272
674997
Whitetop
12ft x 40ft
4372361
675016
Whitetop
5ft x 5ft
4372379
675036
Whitetop
12ft x 80ft
4372455
675047
Whitetop
50 plants
4372541
675094
Whitetop
5ft x 4ft
4372546
675081
Whitetop
100 plants
4372552
675109
Whitetop
3ft x 3ft
4372640
675155
Whitetop
200 plants in 50ft
4372712
675187
Whitetop
6 plants
4372806
675216
Whitetop
12ft x 30ft
4372814
675279
Whitetop
300 plants in 30ft diameter
4372822
675278
Whitetop
50 ft x 50ft
4372938
675243
Whitetop
1000 plants
4373176
675340
Whitetop
100 plants
4373393
675361
Whitetop
500 plants
4373410
675370
Whitetop
20ft x 40ft
4373444
675358
Whitetop
100 plants
4373564
675435
Whitetop
25ft x 60ft
4373594
675416
Whitetop
6ft x 18ft
4373761
675529
Whitetop
Thick in 70ft diameter
4373880
675602
Whitetop
Thick in 12ft diameter
4373886
675575
Whitetop
20ft x 30ft
4373903
675623
Whitetop
Moderately thick in 20ft diameter
WestWater Engineering
Appendix A
January 2012
Appendix A
Locations of noxious weeds within Garfield County
Northing
Easting
Species
Notes
4373982
675656
Whitetop
Thick in 25ft diameter
4373983
675620
Whitetop
loft x loft
4374021
675638
Whitetop
25ft x 60ft
4374261
675832
Tamarisk
7 plants
4374780
676478
Whitetop
20ft x 20ft
4374818
676481
Whitetop
50 plants
4374824
676546
Whitetop
30ft x 70ft
4374827
676608
Whitetop
Thick in 100ft diameter
4374858
676650
Whitetop
20ft x 20 ft
4374876
676636
Common burdock
1 plant
4374886
676613
Whitetop
20ft x 40ft
4375042
676807
Tamarisk
1 plant
4375188
676897
Common burdock
10 plants
4375192
677004
Whitetop
50ft diameter - thick
4375203
676902
Tamarisk
10 plants
4375235
676933
Tamarisk
5 plants
4375245
677063
Whitetop
50ft x 100ft - thick
4376183
677229
Tamarisk
2 plants
4376412
677217
Tamarisk
Starts and extends 600ft north along creek;
thin concentration
4377071
677622
Whitetop
75ft diameter - thick
4377158
677645
Tamarisk
2 plants
4377772
677989
Tamarisk
2 plants
4378231
678273
Tamarisk
1-10 plants
4378234
678266
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4378261
678297
Tamarisk
1-10 plants
4378472
678371
Tamarisk
1-10 plants
4378539
678431
Tamarisk
1-10 plants
4378976
678327
Tamarisk
2 plants
4380006
678362
Tamarisk
1 plant at creek
4380164
678379
Tamarisk
10 plants
4380568
678529
Whitetop
25 plants
4380628
678566
Whitetop
1000 plants
4380960
678824
Whitetop
loft x loft
4380971
678791
Whitetop
500 plants
4381021
678886
Common burdock
2 plants
WestWater Engineering
Appendix A
January 2012
Appendix A
Locations of noxious weeds within Garfield County
Northing
Easting
Species
Notes
4381024
678893
Whitetop
5ft x 5ft
4381039
678912
Whitetop
loft x 20ft
4381096
679185
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4381157
679181
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4381157
679246
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4381206
679010
Whitetop
500 plants
4381236
679276
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4381240
679233
Common burdock
10-100 plants
4381243
679270
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4381244
679312
Common burdock
10-100
4381246
679241
Common burdock
10-100 plants
4381248
679231
Bull thistle
1-10 plants
4381266
679253
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4381270
679284
Common burdock
10-100 plants
4381274
679247
Common burdock
10-100 plants
4381290
679292
Common burdock
10-100 plants
4381388
679283
Common mullein
25x25m
4381413
679167
Common burdock
50ft x 150ft
4381425
679202
Common burdock
20ft x 50ft
4381488
679233
Whitetop
60ft x 60ft
4381503
679254
Tamarisk
1-10 plants
4381504
679255
Tamarisk
1 plant
4381621
679000
Common mullein
20 plants
4381756
679040
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4381926
678815
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4382010
678752
Common mullein
1-10 plants
4382100
678669
Common mullein
1-10 plants
4382101
678652
Whitetop
4382103
678653
Common mullein
4382129
678617
Common burdock
4382138
678577
Houndstongue
1-10 plants
4382335
678365
Common mullein
1-10 plants
4382439
678183
Bull thistle
30 plants
4382471
678224
Common mullein
4382550
678106
Bull thistle
10 plants
4382554
678124
Houndstongue
Patches along entire centerline SE to where
WestWater Engineering
Appendix A
January 2012
Appendix A
Locations of noxious weeds within Garfield County
Northing
Easting
Species
Notes
proposed PL crosses road
4382554
678113
Whitetop
4382564
678102
Bull thistle
4382621
678057
Bull thistle
1 plant
4382724
678038
Bull thistle
50 or more plants
4382730
678043
Bull thistle
26 plants
4382731
678044
Houndstongue
1 plant
4382852
678006
Bull thistle
6 plants
4382908
677944
Tamarisk
7 plants
4383266
676069
Common mullein
Common mullein about 20 scattered plants
4383276
677665
Bull thistle
12 plants
4383294
676009
Common mullein
5 plants in 100 ft long area
4383338
675875
Common mullein
100 plants
4383350
675891
Houndstongue
20 plants
4383350
676609
Houndstongue
VETH also in vicinity in 25m radius
4383354
676672
Houndstongue
2 plants
4383355
675914
Common mullein
100 scattered plants
4383361
676695
Houndstongue
4383379
677272
Common mullein
4383384
677051
Common mullein
4383384
677031
Common mullein
25 plants
4383384
677060
Bull thistle
4383387
677013
Common mullein
20 plants
4383388
677241
Common mullein
4383393
676455
Houndstongue
4383394
677282
Bull thistle
4383394
676727
Common mullein
4383394
676912
Common mullein
5 plants
4383396
676927
Common mullein
4 plants
4383399
676978
Common mullein
4383403
676893
Common mullein
4383412
676896
Bull thistle
4384708
675307
Common mullein
1-10 plants
4384936
675337
Canada thistle
100 plants
4385525
675264
Bull thistle
1-10 plants
4385569
675263
Common burdock
1-10 plants
WestWater Engineering
Appendix A
January 2012
Appendix A
Locations of noxious weeds within Garfield County
Northing
Easting
Species
Notes
4385630
675265
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4385928
675136
Common mullein
1-10 plants
4386088
674850
Common mullein
10-20 plants
4386216
674704
Canada thistle
100 plants
4387516
673739
Houndstongue
4387578
673733
Houndstongue
4387777
673877
Houndstongue
20 plants
4387813
673997
Houndstongue
In 5m radius
4387878
673775
Houndstongue
1000 plants
4387925
673760
Common burdock
50 plants
4387935
673758
Bull thistle
50 plants
4387945
673665
Bull thistle
10-50 plants
4388422
673370
Bull thistle
1-10 plants
4388445
673347
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4388558
673254
Bull thistle
50-100 plants
4388714
673179
Houndstongue
20-50 plants
4388751
673141
Houndstongue
1-10 plants
4389030
673083
Common burdock
10-20 plants
4389578
672973
Common burdock
10-20 plants
4389685
672915
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4389810
672861
Bull thistle
10-20 plants
4390141
672673
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4390155
672620
Common burdock
50 plants
4390662
672386
Houndstongue
1-10 plants
4390802
672354
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4390839
672350
Common burdock
10-100 plants
4391041
672304
Common burdock
1-10 plants
4363106
673738
Whitetop
25ft x 30ft
4363624
673788
Whitetop
40ft x 40ft
WestWater Engineering Appendix A January 2012
APPENDIX B 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 diffusa
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
Smallflower
tamarisk
TAPA4
Tree
Perennial
B
Tamarix
ramosissima
Salt cedar,
Tamarisk
TARA
Tree
Perennial
B
WestWater Engineering
Appendix B
January 2012