Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.08 Wildlife_Vegetation Impact Analysis APPENDIX 9-102.K WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION IMPACT ANALYSIS THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK FOR TWO-SIDED DUPLICATION. URSA OPERATING COMPANY, LLC. B&V TEMPORARY WATER PIPELINE Impact Analysis: Section 4-203-G (6) – Environmental Impacts Garfield County Land Use and Development Code Prepared for: Ursa Operating Company, LLC. 792 Buckhorn Drive Rifle, Colorado 81650 Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 Nicholas Jaramillo, Biologist/Environmental Scientist January 2017 WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 13 January 2017 INTRODUCTION Project Description At the request of Ursa Operating Company, LLC. (Ursa), WestWater Engineering (WestWater) has prepared this Garfield County Impact Analysis for the proposed B&V Temporary Water Pipeline project consisting of a surface water pipeline approximately 2.01 miles in length. The project would be located on private lands in Garfield County, Colorado in Sections 7 and 8, Township 7 South, Range 95 West. The current primary uses of the surrounding area include residential, agricultural, rangeland, natural gas development, and wildlife habitat. This document reports the results and analysis of findings pertinent to the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code (amended November 12, 2013) as they apply to this project. Survey Methods No specific site visit was made for this project, although portions of this project overlapped with other recent surveys conducted by WestWater in this area. Based on existing information from our database, literature review, and experience working in the geographical area, WestWater biologists can make generalizations regarding the biological resources that may be present in the project area. Vegetation communities were determined through aerial photography and WestWater’s previous experience in the project area. Plant species occurrence and identification was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Spackman et al. 1997, Kershaw et al. 1998, Whitson et al. 2001, CWMA 2013, Weber and Wittmann 2012). 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 expected natural vegetation characteristics at the project site (NRCS 2017). A desktop review was performed to identify known raptor and special status wildlife species occurrences within 0.125 mile of the proposed pipeline. Noxious weed conditions are reported in a separate Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan (IVNWMP) that was prepared separately for this project (WestWater 2017). Data locations are reported in map datum NAD83, Zone 12. SECTION 4-203-G (6) - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WATERS OF THE U.S. – Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Based on available mapping and aerial photographs, five areas of potentially jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the U.S. are adjacent to or crossed by the project. These are described in Table 1 and Figure 2. Table 1. Potential Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Label Comments WOUS-1 Colorado River – crossing will be made by suspending pipeline from existing infrastructure and no impact will be made within ordinary high water mark. WOUS-2 USGS mapped drainage. WOUS-3 USGS mapped drainage. WOUS-4 USGS mapped drainage. WOUS-5 USGS mapped drainage. VEGETATION The affected area covers a variety of habitat types consisting of native and disturbed rangelands as well as agricultural areas and a small amount of riparian or wetland communities. Common grasses include annual wheatgrass (Eremopyrum triticeum), bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), downy brome (cheatgrass) (Bromus tectorum), indian ricegrass (Achnatherum WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 13 January 2017 hymenoides), intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), timothy (Phleum subulatum), and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). Shrub and woodland communities in the area are dominated by a mixture of basin and Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata tridentata and A.t. wyomingensis ) and pinyon-juniper (Pinus edulis – Juniperus osteosperma) woodlands with areas of greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus). Areas of riparian and wetland vegetation are dominated by broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and three-leaf sumac (Rhus trilobata). Threatened and Endangered Plant Species The occurrence and distribution of special status plants in this region are strongly influenced by elevation, hydrology, geologic formations, and soil characteristics present in an area. Threatened and endangered plants known to occur in Garfield County are listed in Table 2 (USFWS 2017). Table 2. Special status plants occurring in Garfield County. Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status Colorado hookless cactus Sclerocactus glaucus Threatened DeBeque phacelia Phacelia submutica Threatened Parachute beardtongue Penstemon debilis Threatened Ute ladies’-tresses orchid Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Due to previous disturbances, soil composition, elevation, hydrology patterns, and distance to known populations, the project area is unlikely to provide suitable habitat for any special status plant species in this region. Review of the Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et. al. 1997) and WestWater’s database confirms that no known populations of special status plants occur nearby. Noxious Weeds Noxious weed infestations, control techniques, and revegetation recommendations are reported in an IVNWMP that was prepared for this project (WestWater 2017). Noxious weed species listed by the State of Colorado (2005) known to exist in or near the project area include bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), chicory (Cichorium intybus), common burdock (Arctium minus), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), Salt cedar (tamarisk – Tamarix ramosissima), and Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthanium). Several unlisted nuisance weed species that are present in disturbed areas include flixweed (Descurania sophia), kochia (Bassia scoparia), Russian thistle (Salsola spp.), and tall tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). WILDLIFE Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species The project area was evaluated for threatened, endangered, or sensitive wildlife species listed in Garfield County (Table 3) (USFWS 2017). Table 3. Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species for Garfield County. Common Name Scientific Name Status Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 13 January 2017 Table 3. Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species for Garfield County. Common Name Scientific Name Status Greenback cutthroat trout* Oncorhynchus clarki stomias Threatened Humpback chub Gila cypha Endangered Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened Bold = Species which may be affected by project. * Until review and rulemaking process is complete regarding recent genetic research, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is recommending that “Lineage GB” cutthroat trout be managed as greenback cutthroat (USFWS 2012) Designated critical habitat for two endangered fish species (Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker) occurs in the Colorado River within the project area (Figure 3) and these species have been documented near Parachute (Maddux et al. 1993). Designated critical habitat for two additional species (bonytail and humpback chub) occurs downstream of the project near Grand Junction (Maddux et al. 1993). No designated critical habitat exists for yellow-billed cuckoo, however cottonwood stands near the river may provide marginal habitat. This species has not recently been documented near Parachute. No other species listed in Table 3 would be affected, as habitat conditions are not appropriate. Raptors At least fifteen raptor species may be found in suitable habitats in the region (Table 4). Nesting season for raptor species in this area takes place from January through mid-August. The most common raptor species observed in the area include American Kestrel, Cooper’s Hawk, Golden Eagle, Great Horned Owl, and Red-tailed Hawk. Bald Eagles are common near the Colorado River and forage near Battlement Mesa. Table 4. Raptor species that may occur near the project area. Common Name Scientific Name BCC* American Kestrel Falco sparverius No Bald Eagle§ Haliaeetus leucocephalus Yes Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii No Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Yes Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Yes Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus No Long-eared Owl Asio otus No Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus No Northern Goshawk§ Accipiter gentilis No Northern Pygmy Owl Glaucidium gnoma No Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus No Peregrine Falcon+§ Falco peregrines Yes Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus Yes Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis No Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus No Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni No *BCC=U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008a) + State species of concern (CPW 2017a) §BLM sensitive species (BLM 2009) WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 13 January 2017 No raptor nests are known to exist within 0.125 mile of the proposed pipeline (Figure 3) although complete surveys have not been conducted. Indirect impacts to occupied nests could occur if construction occurs during the nesting season and such nests exist. Birds of Conservation Concern, Migratory, and Non-migratory Birds (other than raptors) WestWater biologists evaluated the project area for migratory bird species that could be affected by the project. Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) have been identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for priority conservation management in an attempt to prevent the listing of additional species under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2008a). A literature review was conducted to identify BCC species with potential to occur during other times of the year (Table 5) (Andrews & Righter 1992, Kingery 1998, Righter et al. 2004). Table 5. BCC species that may occur in the project area. Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Description Brewer’s Sparrow* Spizella breweri Expansive sagebrush shrublands; occasionally found in greasewood or other shrublands. Cassin's Finch Haemorhous cassinii Coniferous forest (including pinyon-juniper), aspen, and cottonwood. Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior Open pinyon-juniper habitats between 4,500 and 6,500 feet. Juniper Titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi Pinyon-juniper woodlands. Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Open conifers, riparian cottonwoods, and burns. Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Pinyon-juniper woodlands above 5,000 feet. * Also a BLM sensitive species (BLM 2009) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidance indicates that developments may potentially affect nesting migratory birds within 100 feet of a project. The species in Table 5 and a multitude of other migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) are expected to occur in the project area and could be affected by vegetation removal or equipment operation during nesting season. American Elk and Mule Deer The project is located in CPW Game Management Unit 42. The project is within CPW mapped mule deer severe winter range and a winter concentration area (CPW 2017b) (Figure 4). The project is also located within a mapped elk winter concentration area (Figure 5). Both species utilize the area, mostly during winter, but a few resident animals may be present year-round. Black Bear and Mountain Lion CPW mapping shows the project area to be within overall range for black bear and mountain lion and both species are known to occur nearby. Portions of the project are within CPW mapped mountain lion- human conflict areas and black bear-human conflict areas (CPW 2017b). Bears could occur in the area almost year round with the exception of the hibernation period occurring from late fall through late spring. At times when foraging is difficult, bears become more visible as they are more likely to utilize unnatural food sources created by humans. Mountain lions likely inhabit the general project area primarily during the winter months as they follow migrating big game herds, but could be found year-round. Lions tend to have large territories and are highly mobile as they search for food or new territories so sightings tend to be uncommon. Small Mammals Common small mammal species in the project area include coyote (Canis latrans), cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii), and numerous rodent species. WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 13 January 2017 Reptiles Bull snake (Pituophis catenifer), plateau striped whiptail (Cnemidophorus velox), racer (Coluber constrictor), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciousus), short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi), western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), and midget faded rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis concolor) are reptiles potentially occurring in the project area (Hammerson 1999). Other than the midget faded rattlesnake, which is a BLM sensitive and State species of concern (BLM 2009, CPW 2017a), these species do not have any special protection. Aquatic Species Aquatic species that may occupy the project area include northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens – State Species of Concern and BLM Sensitive), Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana – BLM Sensitive) in addition to several species without special status designations, such as tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) and Woodhouse’s toad (Anaxyrus woodhousii). The Colorado River is home to a multitude of native and non-native fish species in addition to special status species described previously in this report. SECTION 4-203-G (6) (a) - DETERMINATION OF LONG AND SHORT-TERM EFFECTS ON FLORA AND FAUNA FLORA The placement of a surface pipeline would have little to no lasting impact on important native vegetation. In addition to the minor disturbance, much of the vegetation in the various plant communities affected by the project have already been disturbed by previous developments and management practices. No special status plant occurrences are known to exist nearby. Noxious weeds occurring in the area are discussed in an accompanying IVNWMP prepared by WestWater for this project (WestWater 2017). FAUNA Colorado River Endangered Fishes Designated critical habitat for two endangered fish species (Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker) occurs in the Colorado River within the project area and critical habitat for two additional species (bonytail and humpback chub) occurs downstream of the project near Grand Junction (Maddux et al. 1993). Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker have been documented in the river upstream as far as Rifle (W. R. Elmblad, retired CPW fisheries biologist, pers. comm.). Potential impacts to aquatic species would be limited to water depletions and increased sediment loads or pollutants that could move from the project to the river. Implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC), a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with this type of project will provide a good degree of mitigation for any potential impacts. Water depletions are addressed by a Programmatic Biological Opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2008b). Raptors No raptor nesting habitat would be directly affected by the project. Short-term effects could include temporary displacement of raptors in an avoidance area surrounding active construction areas due to increased human presence and equipment motion and noise. American Elk and Mule Deer No significant amount of foraging habitat will be lost within the footprint of the project. No CPW mapped migration corridors would be affected. Human presence and activity during construction may affect animal distribution by creating avoidance areas. WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 13 January 2017 Additional traffic resulting from this project would contribute minimally to vehicle related wildlife mortality given the low speed limits and significant, long-term, local traffic. Fences can pose an increased risk to big game and any required fencing should be constructed according to published standards that reduce impacts to big game (Hanophy 2009). Black Bear and Mountain Lion Potential encounters between bears and personnel could occur if garbage or food is available on construction sites. Mountain lions are occasionally observed in the area, but generally avoid human contact. Incidences of human and bear/lion interactions sometimes result in the euthanasia of offending animals by the CPW. Small Mammals, Birds (BCC), and Reptiles Depending on project timing, nesting habitat for migratory birds could be affected by people and equipment during construction resulting in destruction of active bird nests. No vegetation removal beyond mowing should be required for development of this project, which would temporarily reduce foraging habitat for small mammals and birds. Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution. An increase in traffic could result in vehicle related mortalities. SECTION 4-203-G (6) (b) – DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECT ON DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Development of the project would not directly affect any designated critical wildlife or occupied plant habitat for threatened or endangered species. Downstream habitats for aquatic species could be affected by water depletions, pollutants, and sedimentation. This project would contribute minimally to cumulative effects of habitat alteration in the area. SECTION 4-203-G (6) (c) – IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS  Creation of hazardous conditions: Some passerine bird species and small mammals may choose to inhabit or nest on equipment or objects at the construction site. The inherent risks associated with these structures are low given the short-term and transient nature of a surface pipeline project. By closing or covering all ports, hatches, cavities, and openings (such as the ends of pipes) this potential is decreased. Most non-game bird species and their nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755) and damaging occupied nests could be considered a “take” resulting in a violation. Livestock and big game will likely avoid the project site during construction.  Direct Construction Effects: Mowing prior to construction will temporarily remove nesting and foraging habitat for a migratory and non-migratory birds, mammals, and reptiles. This affect should be minor and short-term if the project takes place outside of nesting season (April-July).  Indirect Construction Effects: Additional human presence and activity related to construction may influence spatial and temporal use of habitat surrounding the project by wildlife. Since the surface pipeline would be developed adjacent to significant and long-term human presence (county roads and other developments), the additional indirect effects in those areas would be minimal.  Road-kill: Speed limits are relatively low and most wildlife in the area has become habituated to vehicle traffic on public roads. The potential for vehicle related wildlife mortalities related specifically to this project would be low. WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 13 January 2017 REFERENCES Andrews, R., and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to Their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History. Denver. BLM. 2009. BLM Colorado State Director’s Sensitive Species List. November 20, 2009 Update. CPW. 2017a. State of Colorado species of concern list. Available online: http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx. Accessed January 17, 2017. CPW. 2017b. All species activity mapping data. Available online: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=190573c5aba643a0bc058e6f7f0510b7 Accessed January 17, 2017. CWMA. 2013. 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. Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado, Second Edition. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Hanophy, W. 2009. Fencing with Wildlife in Mind. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver. Available online: http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/DO WFencingWithWildlifeInMind.pdf Kershaw, L., A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing, Auburn, Washington. Kingery, H. E. 1998. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. Maddux, H., L. Fitzpatrick, and W. Noonan. 1993. Colorado River Endangered Fishes Critical Habitat. Biological Support Document. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah/Colorado Field Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, 225 pp. NRCS. 2017. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Available online: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed January 17, 2017. Righter, R., R. Levad, C. Dexter, and K. Potter. 2004. Birds of Western Colorado Plateau and Mesa Country. Grand Valley Audubon Society, Grand Junction. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 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 p. USFWS. 2008a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia. USFWS. 2008b. Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) (ES/GJ-6-CO-08-F0006) Re: BLM Colorado River Fluid Minerals Program Water Depletions. USFWS, Ecological Services. Grand Junction, Colorado USFWS. 2012. Updated position paper on ESA consultations on greenback cutthroat trout, including the cutthroat trout referred to as Lineage GB. Updated Oct 4, 2012. WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 13 January 2017 USFWS. 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species List for the State of Colorado. Available online: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=CO. Accessed January 17, 2017. Weber, W. A., and R. C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Western Slope. Fourth Edition, University Press of Colorado, Boulder. WestWater. 2017. Integrated vegetation and noxious weed management plan for Ursa Operating Company, LLC’s proposed B&V Temporary Water Pipeline project. Grand Junction. 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 – 9th edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie. WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 13 January 2017 WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 13 January 2017 WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 13 January 2017 WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 13 January 2017 WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 13 January 2017 WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 2 October 2016 URSA OPERATING COMPANY, LLC. B&V TEMPORARY WATER PIPELINE Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Garfield County Land Use and Development Code WILDLIFE Colorado River Endangered Fishes Designated critical habitat for four endangered fish occurs in the Colorado River within the project area. Runoff from storms or snowmelt may carry increased sediment loads or pollutants from the pipeline to the river. Implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC), a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with this type of project will provide a good degree of mitigation for any potential impacts. Water depletions that could affect aquatic species associated with the project are addressed under a Programmatic Biological Opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2008). Raptors Activities associated with the project have minimal potential to impact raptor populations as no raptor nesting habitat would be directly affected, and no raptor nests are known to occur near the project area. Indirect impacts would be related to displacement of foraging activities and the effect would be small given the abundance of foraging habitat available and short term nature of surface pipeline construction. Due to these factors, in addition to a high ongoing level of human activity in the general project area, it is unlikely that the project would contribute to any adverse effects for raptor species. American Elk, Mule Deer, Black Bear, and Mountain Lion Implementation of the Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan (IVNWMP) (WestWater 2017) would help reduce the spread of noxious weeds in disturbed areas. Low speed limits and the high volume of local traffic on area roads mitigate potential road kill. Facility fencing should be consistent with published standards that reduce potential harm to wildlife (Hanophy 2009). Black bear and mountain lion may occasionally be observed near the site and should not be approached if encountered. Personnel may be unfamiliar with wildlife in the area and should be informed of the potential for bear and lion interactions. Personnel should not feed or harass wildlife at any time. Trash should be stored in bear-proof receptacles and/or removed from the site on a daily basis to prevent attracting bears to the site. Negative interactions may result in euthanasia of problem animals. Birds, Small Mammals, and Reptiles Nesting cover for ground nesting birds and foraging habitat for numerous species could be affected by mowing or by equipment during construction. PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION Native vegetation would not be permanently removed for development of the project. Application of the IVNWMP (WestWater 2017) would help inhibit the spread of noxious weeds within the project area. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction can create optimal conditions for the establishment of invasive, non-native species. Vehicles and 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. WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 2 October 2016 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. REFERENCES Hanophy, W. 2009. Fencing with Wildlife in Mind. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Denver. Available online: http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/LandWater/PrivateLandPrograms/DO WFencingWithWildlifeInMind.pdf USFWS. 2008. Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) (ES/GJ-6-CO-08-F0006) Re: BLM Colorado River Fluid Minerals Program Water Depletions. USFWS, Ecological Services. Grand Junction. WestWater Engineering. 2017. Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan for Ursa Operating Company, LLC’s proposed B&V Temporary Water Pipeline project. Grand Junction.