Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1.15 Final reclamation stormwater site plan
~ (/) ~ r r:n -•• (.) 0 0 ~ :--1 (/) ~ r r:n --: I @ ~- ... C) + 0 0 ... ... + 0 0 ... 0 + 8 ~ + 0 0 p§QUJ .. --.............. -.. -.... -...... -, ! _r5ta. 49 +35.3 (Existing Pipeline} """"'-5 ta. 49+25.3 {Existing Pipelin e} _5J>§'j,6_ .................................. 7 / \ 5ta. 45+98.5 {Drain age} -5-5-6-4'~ .... -........ -.. --.. --.... _r 5ta. 45+48.4 Excel Pipeline ~ 5ta. 45+19.9 Excel Pipeline -5ta. 44+88.1 {Two-Track Rood} ::::': ::_::::-:·--~ ~"" <U~J ,,_,,od ._) .... i_ 5ta. 4 1+49.1 {Ditch} -~6_ZQ-l ........................................ \-5ta. 40+12.1 {Ditch} 5 ta. 37+63.5 ?§??~ '!_ ........................................ .\ _/,_{Existing Noble Pipeline) \ _r5ta. 37+30.9 {Existing ETC 8" Pipeline) -5ta. 35+570 J>§jp~Q _ .. _ .... ____ ...................... _ \ {Existing Noble 8" Pipeline} """"'-5ta. 35+72.3 {Centerline of Impro ved Road) 5657.5 \ .... ----.......................................... -~ I .5§J>§Ji ............ -........ -........ -........ .. _5§jJ~'!. ........................................ .. p§J~~9 .......................... -.. -........ .. ]~ 0~ 112 F< rnm :s~ rn ~ VI < t' N• r, \ ~ I (.,;;u.,.. -1J)~~/.:.<f:,-.. ~u.,,1 : ~~:S;s 1: "</ ~·· ~I /~ 0 t(,-J! J.r ~ t; II (6 .Di ~ r R >~" I I I I I I I I I I I : I /~ I ,'~--- ,~J) ~~ n ~"i l ,~t \ .... I ~ I 0 ·~ oJ .t ~ -~~1!1,1_ ................................ -j J5ta. 25+474 (Ditch) -5ta. 25+ 2 7.7 {Drainage) \\5to. 25+15.5 {Drainage) P? H_O_ .......... -........ ------ f 0 - A s {f$ !f &i -:,.C.. -"' <"' d'J r; .fJ:~ ~- otC. 1 o~s!J .5J> .. S§J ................................ .. -~~~Q~------------------ 1 _5_5_5~,.:?. .............. -........ -...... ~1 21+2 1.1 {Pipeline) 20+92.3 {Pipeline) :::::: :---:::::---L ,;m., , ... ~) " ', .5§PP~~------------------~'"-, ~ ~ C) '" \. _579'?~1 ................ -.................................. '\. ! \. " <::> -~~~Z.:?. ............................................................ :~~ ', " ' ????-.. 9_ ................................................ -.... -.................. \ ...... \ ~ I 0 _5') 1 ~-.. 5_ .......... -.. -.. ---............ -.......... -............................ ~ ~ ~ I ,<:> t-?C 5922.7 _ I ~~ ---------------------------------------------i~~ ''] 9$J~._7_ .. ----------------------------------1~ 1 1; "'" ~~ a~ .. I'IIEPI>PED FOR: ENCANA. ~ EnCan a Oil & Gas (USA) Inc . 9 ~c ~~ ::.!» Oo, "' "I) i5• §: ~ PROJECT' -FINAL RECLAMATION· 510RMWATER SITE PI.AII High Mesa 16" Discharge Pipeline Sec:lions 2 & 3 , TBS, R96W 9lld Sec:lions 35 & 36, T7S, R96W, 6th P.M. Garlleld Countv. ColonJdo ---/) -~ /1 I IJI I ~~ <.n :o ~ / '.,:) ,' I I I I I I i! ~~~ 11~ , /?' h..~ ' _, / \ \ g : ~ ~ a -[ ~ ~ ~ ]· ~ o oC)tt~n 0 c a.3mcc ~ g: 0 c ~ ~ ; 5 ' < ~ ~ :-t :;) :;: l/) ~ ~ ~ ~~ g ?-0 0 rr; 2.. Cb 2:. a. 5· (t g . : ~. 5 .. ~ ~ ~ :. ? ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ §." "0 . 3 -1 5' ell ft tD g ;; 3' §: g ~ ;~ 3· 3 :;= Q ~ ~ .o ~ ~ ~ n: s·..o (t 2 !D g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v;· ~ g g : :::-~ ~ :=:(II ~'<~ g.g =:g~ 0 ~ ~ Q ;r j1 ° 5· 3 g ~ 0 s: -~ ~ b' Q .0 ~· ~ 0 g ~ g ~~5g !l~:g ~[ ]· 2~ ~~[ell;; R-.... ;;; 0 I I I I I I WB -WATER BAR CE NTERLINE LE NGTH • l.t,9~7' TYPICAL R.O . W. 'MOTH • 75' TOTAL ACR EACE • 25.45 ACRES Wr.. WNOROW LIP ALO~G SUR r ACE ROUGH ENING ANO REII[G[TATION CONSTRuCnON SIT( BOUNDARY IS OEf lNED BY lliE R.O.W. LENGTH AND WID TH AND IS COUAL TO THE TOTAL AREA Of 01STUR9ANCE Of: 25.4.5 ACRES. ................. I I I I I I I ---I ---.... __ ----......... _ I ' I I I ----- ~~~~~~~g -t}~~~g~~§§ :Z o:z 5 mo ):>.~_. :tnz-<c""'D8 l>- :b . !: ;.o :e C') ::o >d ,~~::r::~ ,...,~::u o C">Vl~;u C") ,...,::o :t-~r""l-t o :r :z:c::::z>~c ::U >C"'):Z 0 ...., ~-t~O )>~g-.., ~x >~~~;J~ -<;f'?'IQ ~)>~"Tl ): ti)::Or--<r-""(. ~f'?'IR-Vl :z-1 oVI co :r: ;!i CC> :o ;;p • ~~?;; ~VI-i V) -< I I I I I I I I I I I I ---.................. y I I ff ~~ -~ f:~ -~:: & o · _......,.,....... \ if --. $?}$$'0!' / ~ I ~ -:. ;t I ~ ~~ ,. ~ "' "' lil ~ ~ ...., G ll) 589'22'56 ·v,, 26 4 3 52' ,... lOTI 0 c;, " SECOON 3. TBS R96W Owner: l-KNOX \/') 0 ' I ~ ~ g ~ \ \ ; ~ -;}, \ ' "","-'\\\ \ ",\\\\\ \" \ '-, ""~ \ \" Own er: MANESS '- r CONSTRUCT WATER BAR (TYPICAL)'._ • ' \, '-. WATER BAR -SPACING OETERHIHEO USING '. '-..__ ' .". '-~ TABLE WB-1 OF Tl-IE ENCAIIA HANUAL FOR ·., -, ' '--... HIGH EROSION SOILS-SEE SHEET 3 ''-. '--..___ ·-. ., -)'· I "'-. -.... '--.._ _/ " "·, ...__ ' ·~ 1 g : L. KN OX ~-, P t=A'N ·VIEW PROFILE VIEW 0 0 ..,: r-..: 0 (0 " "' U') "' "' If) If) 108 +00 .... .:;; II') If) 10 4 +0 0 ~ ... ,., <o ..... ui "' ui ..,: "' <o <o II') '<t U') If) If) If) If) If) If) U') U') If) 100+00 .... <ci 0 If) "' 96+0 0 ;.. ": ;;; <t ~ "' r-..: "' "' If) ·.0 LOH ~ SECOON 2, TBS R96W en O•ne<: L. KNOX ::::-- "' _?i 0 () --~ 0 0 0 (/\ ~ "' "' "' If) <o "' <X) ,., "' "' If) If) If) 92+00 88+00 HORIZ. ;;;- <::> ·~ .., " ~ q;-Q;-~~ c: .s;:::, C).) ~ 1].8~ ~ 0:: Q. "·'* -!l- II) "':.§0..: 0... -:<:-E E ~-.,-., ~ ~~~·§ ·§ e.~~~~~ c-.,."t)r-..., <.o 0)-<:){()l.r)-........................... ~ ~~~~ ~ ... ,.., "' ... II') 0 <o <ci ..,: r-..: <ci r-i r-i ..,: <ci <o ,... <o ... "' ,., " "' ... ... ... v ... " "' "' If) If) "' If) If) If) If) 8 4 +00 80+00 76+00 72+00 SCALE: 1"-300' VERT. SCALE: 1"-150' ' --;;- -:;:;-:§ " .\,' & & :;: " ~ " ~ " ~ ~ -1--1- :2 .... "' ... .... <o r-..: <xi oi r-i II') II') <o <X) "' "' "' ... If) II') "' If) 68+00 l0T2 SECTION 2. TBS R98oV )Owner: S. NOCKS I ' ' \ l tY_Q_K;_ Own er: HELEY J ~ --below. Under ground utilities were located using a pipe l ocator, no lines were e xp osed. Therefo re, tru e l ocations m ay var y from those shown on these drawings. [xlreme caution s hould be used whe n crossing or com ing close to these existin g lines during construct ion . There is no worronty . expressed or implied, by En Cono Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. or Wasatch Surveyin g as t o the completeness or exoct lo cation of exist ing utilities. Cal ............ EXISTING GROUND 1-~----T---~-~---__.., ____ ., I I ---~; : : .,..-....-1 I I I ,..-I I I I I : I ' 0 UJI ELEV ' 215.l)fJ U') "' 0 "' 0 U') ,., <X) "' oi " "' o; <ci 0 "' "' " <o <o "' 0 U') If) If) "' If) If) If) <o If) If) If) "' U') "' U') If) 64+00 60+00 5 6+00 52+00 '1 0 z ~ ;3~ (i" 0:0. 5~ ~~ "'"' o:el w ~ ~"' uw <0 <0: ~ ~ ~ a: a I I oil ~ ~~ ti .s ~ ~ ~ :a u ~ z ~ r.1 (5 ~ Ill a I tfi 2 of 3 l ~ ~ r 1}1 ... •• (.) 0 q ~ ::0 :-i (/} ~ r 1}1 ... .. 0 ... ... + 0 0 : ) : ... 0 + 0 0 ~ "' "' + g l ' . ~ + 0 0 ~ 5280.0 <JL.VV.\,1 5269 . .3 5271.0 52.3.3 .8 52.38.0 5286.7 5.348.5 5.385.9 5.395.5 5399.5 ~ 5407.7 1\0 Co + c c ~ ! ~ ;::; ... + 0 0 541.3.9 5415.1 5425.7 1\0 ~ 5428.5 ~ 5429.6 54.31.0 I I 5406.2 I 5.392.5 . . co -(O O..<"'~o.=:oC~c~~ooC I"> ~3 VI"'-. 0 0 n n ::> <... [~~~_g·~.~.~~~ 0 • .--th :J I,Q 0 -,I.C ':-i ~0~g ~~~~g r:; ~QQ~~~g~g_ Q ~ 3"~ 3 ~: ~ ~ (1) th ~ ()' 3 ' 3 Q (I) ~ ~ ~ g__ ? .0 Cb '< ~ ;· 2 g.~-4g.g3m: g ~'<~~~3 ~~ o <~<;-gg.~(t a-~. ~ u;· : Vl 5; :; g ::J:::>:> :r~ctO.O o..oog~gcn· (; --oo roo::-;r....,.a. ct..,=~ 0"3 a· o ~ ~ ~. g ~ ~ ~i s= g> ~ ~ ~ g Q~ (I) (,1)':<10 ~-·Cb 0 5"=-: ~ ~~~~:;-g " Ef 11e ~~~ ' Sic. 147+40 (Encono Pipeline Xing) ----------I:J Sic. 147+04 (F1b er Optic Line) ----------(=.. Sto. 146+80 {Centerline County Rd 306) -Sto. 146+28 {Encono Pipeline Xing} ---------r-'--sto. 145+05 {£ncono a· Pipeline Xing) I --------' _______ t ""· '"'" (C•"'•"'' ~""" c"") I \ I I ----------' '\ I ' ---------------\ \ \ I -----------------•-Sto. 133+58 (Centerline Rood} -Sia. 1.32+27 {Centerline Rood) '-Sic. 1.30+65 {Centerline Raod) I I I -------------------1 ~ I ':> I lll I =:! I :2: -------------------~ ~ I ~ I '0 I a I C I :;,: ____________________ \ 0 ~ I I --------------------1 I I I I I --------------------, I I I I I --------------------1 I I I I ---------------------1 I ; -------------------I I ~~ Ol> 112: ~ffi $~ m ~ (-sto. 112+82.2 (Centerline Drainage) ---- - -------- -- -- --\, ' ' ' '\ -------------------------------~ ~I PREPARED F<lft ~ .. I~ ~~ ~i:! .., "" PROJECT, -RNAL R£CUUIIA1JON.. S'RHIIIWATER SITE PI.AH ~(.) ENCANA. ~ High Mesa 16" Discharge Pipeline Sections 2 & 3, T8S, R96W and Sections 35 & 36, T7$, R96W, 6th P .M. EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Garfield County, Colorado ~-~ "' I n 0> -"' 0 u "' -I ' + ~ JOO' 0' JOO' .... -11111111 I ' :::! ct. 0 "' ["---~i _: il I ~ ;;:~ SCALE: 1" = 300' ~ lj ~&' i ~ _;;;ill ::0 ~i> g H f i ;4 CD )> ::0 (/) -o )> Q z G) ... M il !S a ~ @ a ~ i fi ~~ ~r " ~ W A q q !S 8l I -::: ~ ~ I I B --i )> CD r fT1 S00'-1tJ'jl ''F.. 2585 j7' ..:::..... g~·-r, '"" ;: .. :~I I I I I ~ ' " ,v· I~ ~ ':' ~ ·c~ ~ o-]\ ~~~~~ (i ... ~ .. :z:. ~~~6~ ;.; ,..~ .... ,...,.. '-.. /.:~;;::k:!! \1 !":z:o~~\'t. / ~ c. ... ---1-----" :z: \ \ I /;· " "' __ ., \_...// I ~ i'~~ ~ 2$ "!i?~ :~.:::::. ~~4 ~S! < / \JI ..., "" 0 ? ~ ~ I (A) _]/4 S.x.luY1 L I I d ~ ~ J !=' " z 0 X [L__ ~~ & ,/ ~~ 1:, I c/ <:oc,; () /// ~"' ()() &'~ p?' ~ ' .,,,,\ __ , ... ' _____ _ ! ---- ---~.:~~~\ ; '\ \ . ~~~· :l iS~ 1 ~2:~ !Sol~ I.ECENO/Bt.AP'S I CCNlERUNE l(NC'Jlot • 14,957' -W8 -WATER BAR TYPlCAl R,O,W, 'W10TH • 7~' 'ttl -W'"-OROW UP AlO'IiC ROAOW.U TOTAl ACREAGE • 25,45 ACRES I"' CONSTRUCnON SITE BOUNDARY IS ~ ~ SURfACE ROUGHENING ~ AND REII£GETATION ocnNEO ev ll-4( R.o.w. LENCTH \ s AND WIDTH AND tS £OVAl TO THE ~ TOTA.I. AREA ()r DtSTURB.ANCE Dr: 25,45 ACRES. ' ~' 10: I I, ,, .~ 'v' ·~ •" 16 1> ,. :l.,c,- o"~ c, ot 0 ~ :c, / oo 'l-c, / _.. o"~ / 0 • , ~ "' 'I ! L ~------;:> ..., Bt'~ ~t~2 I~ ~~~~ "',.I!' :;! ~~!O?i ~ " ~ "' > z M ~ ~ !il ~ -1 ~--·!:! ~ e~~ ~ , . ~~~ ~ / ~!1!/// -/ ~~0~ / / .. Flii-., · ;;:~;:; / / "' > / / //7 /-. --5:?80 ///I ~~~32o { I / /" r•rr. liC>ILE!M- DAn: .-... 1e. 2010 BY loArc iPRO.ECTNO.!f0*10 "Dovn :! :.;,g£~ ...,'",·:,:;· :~c:i!.u~, '"'l>VIvo ..... ~~-· ~\.- "')"V07 r O()u V'ln -o..o ....... ;:.7 ~.'~-;o_ -.: ............. ...... ".~ .. ., •'-' u PREPNOED""' ~s ... __ __ ..... ~Ho.(311TJ~ • IVNWMP (Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan) • Biological Resources and Sensitive Areas Report • Class I and Class III Cultural and Paleontological Resources Inventory ) ) HIGH MESA 16-INCH DISCHARGE PIPELINE Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan Garfield County, Colorado Cover photo: View of the proposed alignment paralleling an existing pipeline east to High Mesa. Prepared for: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 July 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description At the request ofEnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., WestWater Engineering (WWE) has prepared an Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan (IVNWMP) for the construction of a proposed 16 inch pipeline in Garfield County, Colorado. The proposed pifeline alignment is located in Sections 35 and 36 T7S R96W and Sections 2 and 3 T8S R96W, 61 Principal Meridian. This area is located south of the Colorado River between the towns of Parachute and DeBeque, Colorado (Figure 1). The proposed alignment follows an existing pipeline corridor between Wallace Creek Road (Garfield County Road 306) and a compressor station on western High Mesa. Access to the project area is currently available via Stone Quarry Road (Garfield County Rd. 300) from U.S. Highway 6. The current primary uses of the area surrounding the proposed alignment are rangeland, wildlife habitat, and natural resource extraction, including natural gas development. 1.2 General Snrvey Information 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 20 I 0). Field inspections of the project area were conducted by WWE biologists in early June 2010. 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 assessment 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 and Wittmann 200 I). Photographs were taken of the general project location, vegetation, terrain, and specific weed findings. Locations of weeds and other features included in this report were recorded with the aid of a handheld global positioning system (GPS) receiver using NAD83 map datum, with all coordinate locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system in Zone 13. 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Vegetation and climate Natural vegetation communities around the project area have been affected by residential development, agriculture, fire, livestock grazing, and natural gas developments. Native vegetation in the project area consists of pinyon-juniper woodlands (Pinus edulis and Juniperus osteosperma) accompanied by big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), and serviceberry (Amalanchier alnifolia). Other common native plants include broom snakeweed ( Gutierrezia sarothrae ), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), kingcup cactus (Echinocereus triglochidiatus), narrow leaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), prickly pear cactus ( Opuntia spp. ), soapweed yucca (Yucca glauca), three-leaf sumac (Rhus trilobata), wavyleafthistle (Cirsium undulatum), and yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus). Common non-native plants included dry land alfalfa (Medicago sativa), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), yellow salsifY (Tragopogon dubius), yellow sweet-clover (Melilotus officina/is), and several introduced grasses including WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 14 July 2010 downy brome (Bromus tectorum). The climate for the Colorado River Valley in the project area is considered semi-arid with a wide range of annual temperatures and precipitation. The average annual precipitation in the region ranges between 12 and 15 inches, and temperatures range from about 95 degrees F in the summer months to -10 degrees F during the winter months. 2.2 Soils Four soil types are found in the project area (NRCS 2010) as outlined in Table I. Table 1. Soil types in project area. j)~~~fi~~i·;:· ~::;;,: i X ' · ··· •· '.··.•. '•' '··.·.,· •• · •··. \< ••> < >: ' ' ~PP~~xl~at~ •• • •• o .~ •• ,ffi,ll,,,, >Texture(s) .·• .~··' .. · ... ··•.·.s····'·.:.·.v. ... P .. ~ ... ·.es .. ,•···.·,••.·.•· ... :. ; ' .. ·.·.··.· .. ··· .... ·· ... ··.N. a .•. • .•. ~.·.".··.·.··.····.e······.•.v.· ... ~.g .. ·.~ .. · ...•. :.~ .. ·.·~.·.l·i .. 'o.•·.n··· .. \··.•·•.·.•.·.·•.·•·.· •·•.·· •. o/8~f.Projee( .·.· .!r~N1}~~J.1 ~\o£ ;t;.{i• :,; .. ·.· · r .· · . A;rea · Jldefonso Potts Potts- Ildelfonso Complex Torriorthents- Camborthids- Rock Outcrop Complex Stony Loam Loam Loam, Clay Loam, Stony to Very Stony Loam Bedrock, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam 6to 45 3 to 12 12 to 45 15 to 65 Big sagebrush, Prairie june grass, Western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, Serviceberry, Antelope bitterbrush Big sagebrush, Rabbitbrush, Western wheatgrass, Needle-and- thread grass, Indian ricegrass, Bluebunch wheatgrass, Bottlebrush squirreltail Big sagebrush, Rabbitbrush, Antelope bitterbrush, Prairie junegrass, Western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, Serviceberry, Needle-and-thread grass, Bluebunch wheatgrass, Bottlebrush squirreltail Big sagebrush, Rabbitbrush, Antelope bitterbrush, Prairie junegrass, Western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, Serviceberry, Needle-and-thread grass, Bluebunch wheatgrass, Bottlebrush squirreltail 22.7 33.3 43.5 0.5 These soils formed in non-saline or slightly saline alluvium derived from basalt, sandstone, and shale. Areas with these soils are primarily used for grazing and wildlife habitat. 2.3 Terrain The project area lies south of the Colorado River near Una on U.S. Highway 6. Terrain at the site is flat to moderately sloping to the Colorado River. The proposed alignment is crossed by West Water Engineering Page 3 of 14 July 2010 three streams (Wallace Creek, Spring Creek, and Pete and Bill Creek) and several smaller unnamed drainages that flow to the north. The proposed alignment terminates on the western edge of High Mesa. Elevation at the site varies from approximately 5,225 feet above sea level at Wallace Creek, to approximately 6,250 feet above sea level on High Mesa. 3.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS 3.1 Introduction to Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are plants that are aggressive competitors with native plants when non-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 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, construction sites, 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. 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 includes three categories. 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. 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). The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has duties to: I. 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. 3.2 Observations The undisturbed vegetation communities that surround the project site are generally not heavily infested with noxious weeds, other than downy brome (cheatgrass). In areas where soil disturbances (roads, residences, agriculture, fire, repeated heavy grazing, and other developments) have altered the natural vegetative composition, noxious weeds have taken advantage of these growing condition which favor non-native vegetation (Table 2; Photos 1-3). Garfield County listed weeds observed in the project area included chickory ( Cichorium intybus-CliN), common burdock (Arctium minus-ARM!), houndstongue (Cynoglossum o.fficina/e-CYOF), musk thistle (Carduus nutans-CANV4), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens-ACRE3), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium---ONAC), and tamarisk (aka salt cedar) (Tamarix ramosissima-TARA). WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 14 July 2010 ) In addition, several weeds listed by the State of Colorado, but not by Garfield County were observed . These included common mullein (Verbascum thapsus-VETH), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis-COAR4), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium-ERCI6), and halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus-HAGL). State and Garfield County weed species in the project area, their listing status, and control methods are detailed in Table 2. Photo 1. Scotch thistle on existing pipeline corridor adjacent to proposed alignment. Several other weed species were found in the project area that are not listed by the State of Colorado or Garfield County, but may be considered nuisance weeds. These plants can negate revegetation efforts and cause losses due to decreased seeding success and associated costs. The presence ofthese plants creates increased competition for resources by desirable seeded and native young plants. Plants in this category observed in the project area include curly dock (Rumex crispus), kochia (Bassia americana), Russian thistle (aka tumbleweed) (Sa/sola tragus), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), and white horehound (Marrubium vulgare). WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 14 July 2010 ) ) Photo 2. Common mullein and curly dock within proposed alignment. ) Photo 3. Musk thistle near proposed alignment. WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 14 July 2010 Table 2. Noxious weed locations. K'l.'t•J1G,J [J::ifjl(f,1i01tf~ll1ltr3lllilll;\;.J.t{I'~l~l 001&Y9Jf8J1)lt;if,I,~~lil:l!l,ili~l?~l,~lllifl 13 233799 4363770 COAR4 2m diameter 13 234068 4363770 CYOF, VETH 10-50 plants in 5m X 20m area 13 234211 4363770 ACRE3 10-50 plants in 3m diameter 13 234562 4363790 ONAC 12 large plants in 5mX20m area 13 235019 4364405 COAR4 Heavy infestation 100mX15m area 13 235591 4364298 ARMI,CYOF 50-100 plants in 50mX10m area in riparian area 13 236453 4364658 TARA 1-10 plants scattered 13 235594 4364297 ARMI,CYOF CYOF 10-50 plants ARMI1-10 plants in 10m X 10m 13 235585 4364353 CANU4, TARA CANU 10-50 plants TARA 1-10 plants in 10m X 10m 13 234533 4364047 CYOF 10-50 plants in 10m X 40m area 13 233203 4363808 ARM! 1-10 plants 5m X 10m area 13 236490 4364894 CANU4 1-10 plants 10m X 10m area 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 prevent damage to desirable plant species during treatments to prevent 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 reserved to "control" of existing species and prevention of 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 should be employed to prevent most weed infestations. The following practices should be adopted for any activity to reduce the costs of noxious weed control through prevention. The practices include: • Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should 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 should be cleaned of potentially seed-bearing soils and vegetative debris at the infested area prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain. • All maintenance vehicles should be regularly cleaned of soil. • 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 WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 14 July 2010 management of noxious weeds, further inventory and analysis is necessary to I) determine the effectiveness of the past treatment strategies; 2) modifY if necessary the treatment plan; and 3) early detection of new infestations, which would result in more economical treatments. 3.5 Treatment and Control ofNoxions Weed Infestations Control methods for the Garfield County listed noxious weed species found in the project area are described in Table 3. Included in Table 2 are weed life cycle type and recommended control methods for each weed species. Table 3. Listing status and Control Methods for noxious weeds observed in project area. ·;. · cohiiri6Ji} ':·;.; tbsh:A, i'l)i e* ; . ···.····. .·.·•·. .. ·.·· .. ·.· ·.· ... · .. ·.·. • •• · ... ~lime~'' : ~.::'' Sytitbol ,r .. ,< · .. · Control Metllo~s ·. : > . ·. ;'.• > .· . '. . .• . .. . Hand pulling effective in small patches only. Herbicide Chickoryc CIIN p treatment in bud to bloom stage or in fall. Fall treatment most effective since following years shoots are killed. Control options include: I) no treatment; 2) cut and bag seed- bearing plants from previous year, cut rosettes below soil Common ARM! B surface, cut or spot spray bolting plants; 3) spot spray rosettes Burdockc and bolting plants annually. The action options all include a recommendation to defer grazing by domestic livestock until burdock is controlled or eradicated. Combine herbicide or mechanical removal of rosettes with Common VETH B removal of seed heads from any plants that have bolted. Mulleinc Revising land management to reduce competition for native plants has shown to be effective. Journey© provides pre-and post-emergence control of a variety of weeds including cheatgrass. Journey may be used prior to planting desirable species on project area land at rates Downy bromec BRTE A up to 32 ounces per acre per year. For best results in cheatgrass control, Journey© should be applied in late summer or fall before cheatgrass emerges and prior to planting desirable species, as it cannot be used after newly seeded desirable species have begun to emerge. This weed reproduces by seed and horizontal roots. It is one Field of the most competitive perennial weeds and is very difficult Bindweedc COAR4 CP to eradicate. Seeds can stay viable in the soil for up to 40 years. Some success in control is reported in Mesa County with the use of bindweed mites (A ceria malherbae ). Control via mechanical and chemical methods required to Halogetonc HAGL A prevent major infestations. For long term control this must be followed by reseeding with desirable plants to have a lasting effect. WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 14 July 2010 Table 3 Listing status and Control Methods for noxious weeds observed in project area --> Coilimon . . : usti:A jyj~" • .... . -... . ·-· ·_-' -.. . : . -.Nam'e* Symbol .. Colitrol•Metliods • .. ' . ' ·_. .. . . . ., · . Treat I'' year plants with herbicides. Mow bolted plants (2nd year) to eliminate seed production. Repeat this process for several years to exhaust the seed bank, while establishing a Honndstongne CYOF B healthy population of native perennials on treated areas to prevent the re-establishment of the weeds. Chemicals for treatment of first year growth include: Ally/Escort, Plateau, Tordon 22K and Vanquish. Tillage or hand grubbing in the rosette to pre-flowering Musk Thistle8 CANU4 B stages. Repeated mowing at bolting or early flowering. Seed head and rosette weevils, leaf feeding beetles. Herbicides in rosette stage. Redstem ERCI6 B Use a combination of seedbed tillage and herbicides. filaree 8 Apply herbicide in fall (Curtail recommended). Reseed disturbed sites with fast growing grasses. Allelopathic -once Russian ACRE3 p Russian knapweed has become established tillage may be Knapweed8 necessary (only after control is achieved as this giant is cagable of vegetative grogagation if live giants are tilled) to allow revegetation of desirable plants. Scotch Thistle8 ONAC B Tillage, hand grubbing, herbicides in rosette stage, mowing at bolting stage. Repeated flooding prevents seedling establishment. Herbicide Tamarisk8 treatment on basal portion of young plants; cut larger plants TARA p and treat with herbicide plus adjuvant within 30 minutes. Plant area with native species to shade out tamarisk. Biological with insects if available. * Government weed listing: Bold=Garfield County Noxious Weed. Superscript -Colorado State B or C list. **Type: A= annual; B =biennial; CP =creeping perennial; P =perennial 3.6 Recommended Treatment Strategies It is important to know whether the target 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 Tables 4 and 5. Herbicides should not always be the first treatment of choice when other methods can be effectively employed. WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 14 July 2010 Table 3. Treatment Strategies for Annual and Biennial Noxious Weeds Target: Prevent Seed Production I. 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. 4. Mow biennials after bolting stage, before seed set. Mowing annuals will not prevent flowering, but can reduce total seed production. (Sirota 2004) Table 4. Treatment Strategies for Perennials 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; 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 Y, in. - I in. 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. Most misuse is centered on excessive application, either in frequency or concentration. This results in mostly top kill and resistant phenotypes. 3.7 Best Management Practices-Noxious Weeds Construction: The following practices should be adopted for any construction project to reduce the costs of noxious weed control and aid in prevention efforts. The practices include: • 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; WestWater Engineering Page 10 of 14 July 2010 • 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 to reduce area and extent of soil compaction; • Disturbances should be immediately reseeded 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 three percent, 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: Annual and biennial weeds are best controlled at the pre-bud stage after germination or in the spring of the second year. 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 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. Grazing: In the event grazing is allowed in the project area, it should be deferred in reclaimed areas until the desired plant species that have been seeded are established. Alternative Methods: An alternative method, 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 West Water Engineering Page II ofl4 July 2010 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/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. 3.8 Commercial Applicator Recommendations A certified commercial applicator is a good choice for herbicide control efforts. Restricted herbicides 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. 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 or reduced to acceptable levels. These inspections can then be used to prioritize future weed control efforts. 4.0 REVEGETATION-RECLAMATION Site specific reclamation plans should be developed with a qualified reclamation contractor. Successful reclamation of the project area is dependent upon soil type and texture, slope gradient and aspect, proper weed control, available water, and revegetation with suitable plant species. Appendix B is a table that provides the recommended seed mix for Pinyon-Juniper Woodland and/or Mountain/Wyoming Big Sagebrush Shrubland. WestWater Engineering Page 12 of 14 July 2010 ..___, Legend f) 1/Veeds =-=-=-Proposed Pipeline - -Mesa Grand o Mesa National Forest Figure 1 : EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. High Mesa 16in Discharge Pipeline Noxious Weed Locations June 2010 "'lllestWater Enginee r ing .., -c.n...ouno- 0.25 0.5 Miles 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: shrub land 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. 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. Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. NRCS. 2010. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.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 .coopext.co lostate.edu/TRA/W eeds/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. Personal communication with Bill Clark, WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado. Weber, William A., and Ronald C. Wittmann. 2001. Colorado Flora, Western Slope. Third 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-<Jh edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie. WestWater Engineering Page 14 of 14 July 2010 APPENDIX A Garfield County Noxious Weed List 1 -Growth form: T = tree/shrub; F = forb/vine; G = graminoid 2 -Life history: A = annual; B = biennial; P = perennial; W A = winter annual WestWater Engineering Appendix A July 2010 APPENDIXB Achnatherum {Oryzopsis] hymenoides ~~ ....... y ...... , ..•. uvuu. •. , Bunch 1.9 Rimrock Following (15% Each, 30% Total) Pleuraphis {Hilaria} jamesii Viva florets Warm Bunch 2.5 Pseudoroegneria spicata, Agropyron spicatum Secar, P-7, Anatone Cool Bunch 2.8 u ... aL ~, and One of the Following (20% Total) ssp. lwrA.-<;-VU~Ju~, .rJ.l5F Vf'Y' VH Critana, Schwendimar I Cool I .._,vu-I 3.4 Elymus trachycaulus, Agropyron trachycaulum San Luis Cool I Bunch 3.3 Agropyron smithii Arriba Cool I .._,.vu-3.0 u. ... aL >.~.:> and Two ofthe Following (40% Total) Mutton~ass I Poa fendleriana I I Cool I Bunch I 0.6 Poa sandbergii, Poa secunda I I Cool I Bunch I 0.6 Elymus elymoides, Sitanion hystrix I I Cool I Bunch I 2.7 U \,UJ.J. .... J.LU..U. *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 AppendixB July 2010 Addendum to: HIGH MESA 16-INCH DISCHARGE PIPELINE Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan Garfield County, Colorado INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the request ofEnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. (EnCana), WestWater Engineering (WWE) has prepared this addendum to the Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan dated July, 2010 for the proposed High Mesa 16-inch pipeline (WWE 2010). The addendum is necessary to describe the noxious and troublesome weeds survey that was conducted for a proposed pipeline re-alignment which is located in Section 35, T7S, R96W and Section 2, T8S, R96W, 6'" Principal Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado (Figure I). The proposed re-alignment leaves the initial proposed alignment in an existing pipeline corridor just east of the Spring Creek Road, crosses Spring Creek and rejoins the existing pipeline corridor on the west side of Spring Creek. Total length of the proposed realignment is 0.68 miles. The area was surveyed on September 15,2010. RESULTS A small amount of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis-COAR4), was observed in the existing pipeline right-ofway (ROW) at the east end ofthe proposed realignment (Photo 1). Cheatgrass or downy brome (Bromus tectorum) was observed in this section of the pipeline as well as in the understory of the pinon/juniper woodlands in the vicinity of Spring Creek (Photo 2). Several other weed species were found in the same section of the existing pipeline that are not listed by the State of Colorado or Garfield County, but may be considered nuisance weeds. These plants can negate revegetation efforts and cause losses due to decreased seeding success and associated costs. The presence of these plants creates increased competition for resources by desirable seeded and native young plants. Plants in this category that were observed in the project area include kochia (Bassia americana), Russian thistle (aka tumbleweed) (Sa/sola tragus), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum) and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serrio/a). No Garfield County listed weeds were observed within the proposed realignment of the High Mesa pipeline. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Refer to the initial IVNWMP dated July 2010, for reclamation and revegetation recommendations for this project. REFERENCES WWE 2010. High Mesa 16-inch Discharge Pipeline, Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan, Garfield County, Colorado. WestWater Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado. WestWater Engineering Page I of3 September 20 I 0 Photo 1. The east end of the proposed realignment follows an existing pipeline ROW ) Photo 2. The proposed realignment crosses Spring Creek through undisturbed PJ habita t We st Water Eng in eeri ng Page2of3 September 2 0 I 0 ) ) ==-=-=-Pipeline Reroute ==-=-=-High Mesa Pipline \Ne ed Survey Area Figure 1 EnCana Oil & Gas {USA) Inc. 0 Hi~ Mesa 1 6~nch Discharge Pipeline Reroute Weed Survey n'Hest ~ter Engin ee ring 7 CM!sultlnt ~1M en 6-SO."*tl F~et Seplembet 201 0