Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReclamation, Revegetation, and Noxious Weed Management PlanCAERUS OPERATING, LLC MIDDLE FORK TO WILLIAMS 16.INCH PIPELINE RECLAMATION, REVEGETATION' AND NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for: Caerus OperatingrLLC 143 Diamond Ave. Parachuteo CO 81635 Prepared by: \.1 estWgdler E ng i neering 2516 FORES|GI|T C|RCLE, fl GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 01505 Phone: 97O-24L-7O76 January 2024 CERTIF'ICATION STATEMENT : "I hereby certiff that this reclamation, revegetation, and noxious weed management plan was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) in accordance with the provisions of Sections 9-102-L and 9-102-M of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code (as amended)." /*rfur, Amie Wilsey, President t/30/2024 Preparerts Name DATE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description At the request of Caerus Operating, LLC (Caerus), WestWater Engineering (WestWater) has prepared this reclamation, revegetation, and noxious weed management plan for the proposed Middle Fork to Williams 16-inch Pipeline project that would be located on privately owned lands in Garfield County, Colorado. This document reports the results and analysis of the findings that are pertinent to Sections 9- 102-L and 9-102-M of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code (as amended) as it applies to this project. Caerus proposes to construct a new pipeline in Sections 25 and 30, Township 5 South, Range 96 West (Figure 1). The proposed project would be located entirely on privately owned surface in Garfreld County, Colorado. This reclamation, revegetation, and noxious weed management plan applies to the proposed pipeline project. The current land uses include rangeland and wildlife habitat. 1.2 General Survey Information Due to snow conditions present on the ground WestWater biologists have not completed surveys for the proposed pipeline alignment; however, WestWater has performed numerous surveys in the past for other projects in the vicinity of this pipeline alignment. The WestWater GIS database was reviewed during preparation of this report and results of the previous surveys are included in this report. WestWater will perform additional surveys for this alignment during the spring of 2024 when ground conditions are favorable for identifuing and detecting noxious weeds. All noxious weeds detected will be controlled and chemically treated by Caerus in accordance with their weed management plan for the North Parachute Ranch. 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Terrain The proposed pipeline would be located in the vicinity of existing oil and gas infrastructure including access roads, pipeline alignments, and well pads. Elevation within the project area ranges from approximately 5,700 feet to 6,000 feet. The pipeline alignment is located in the bottom of the Middle Fork Parachute Creek and is relatively flat, and the surrounding cliffs and steep hills rise quickly from the valley ofParachute Creek. The project area is located at thejunction ofthe East Fork ofParachute Creek and the West Fork of Parachute creek. 2.2 Soils The pipeline alignment passes through four mapped soil types as described below in Table I and shown in Figure 2. Soils in the survey area are typically well drained and occur along valley sides, alluvial fans and drainage bottoms (Table l) (Natural Resources Conservation Service INRCS] 2024). The soils within the project area vary from very low to very high runoff classification. WestWater Engineering Page I of 17 January 2024 Soil Map Unit Svmbol Soil Series Description 46 Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Occurs on valley sides and alluvial fans between 5,000 and 6,500 feet. Parent material is alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. 47 Nihill channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes Occurs on valley sides and alluvial fans between 5,000 and 6,500 feet. Parent material is alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents cotnplex, very steep Occurs on hillslopes, escarpments and plateaus between 5,800 and 8,500 feet. m. Parent rnaterial is very stony colluvium derived from calcareous shale. 65 Torrifluvents, nearly level Occurs on distributaries, rivers, and flood plains between 5,000 and 7,000 feet. Parent material is alluvium. Table 1. Soil Types within the Project Area. 2.3 Vegetation Vegetation within the project area is comprised of barren shale hillsides near the eastem terminus, irrigated pasturelands along Lindauer Meadow, and Basin big sagebrush shrublands intermixed with mountain shrublands near the western terminus. Common plants observed in the project area for other projects in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline alignment are described in Table2. Table 2. Common plant species observed in general project vicinity. Common Name ScientiJic Nsme Abundance*Habitat Type Grasses Bluebunch wheatgrass Ps eudoro egneria spicata XXX Disturbed Areas, Shale Slopes Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum XXX Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Sagebrush Shrublands, Disturbed Areas Green needlegrass Nassella viridula XXX Disturbed Areas Indian ricegrass Eriocoma hymenoides XXX Shale Slopes, Sagebrush Shrublands, Disturbed Areas Needle and thread grass Hesperostipa comata XX Sagebrush Shrublands WestWater Engineering Page2 of 17 January 2024 Table 2. Common plant species observed in general project vicinity. Smooth brome Bromus inermis xx Sagebrush Shrublands, Disturbed Areas Festuca thurberiThurber's fescue xxx Disturbed Areas Western wheatgrass Elymus smithii XXX Sagebrush Shrublands, Disturbed Areas Forbs Black medic Medicago lupulina xx Pasturelands, Disturbed Areas Burningbush Bassia scoparia xxx Disturbed Areas Common dandelion Taraxacum fficinale xx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas, Sagebrush Shrublands Desert madwort Alyssum desertorum xxx Sagebrush Shrublands, Disturbed Areas Sharpleaf twinpod Physaria acutifulia xxx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland Lappula squarrosaEuropean stickseed xxx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis xxx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas, Sagebrush Shrublands White sagebrush Artemisia ludoviciana xxx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas, Sagebrush Shrublands Lewis flax Linum lewisii XX Sagebrush Shrublands, Disturbed Areas Longleafphlox Phlox longifolia xx Sagebrush Shrublands Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola xxx Disturbed Areas Redstem stork's bill Erodium cicutarium XX Sagebrush Shrublands, Disturbed Areas Saltlover Halogeton glomeratus XX Disturbed Areas Scarlet globernallow Sphaeralcea coccinea xxx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas WestWater Engineering Page 3 of l7 January 2024 Table 2. Common plant species observed in general project vicinity. Small tumbleweed mustard Sisymbrium loeselii xxx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas Tall tumblemustard Sisymbrium altissimum xx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas Thickleafbeardtongue P e ns tem o n p a c hyp hy I I us xxx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas Westem white clematis Clematis ligusticifu lia xx Sagebrush Shrublands Yarrow Achillea millefolium xxx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas, Sagebrush Shrublands Yellow salsify Tragopogon dubius XX Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas, Sagebrush Shrublands Shrubs/Trees Basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata xxx Disturbed Areas, Sagebrush Shrublands Fourwing saltbush Atriplex canescens xx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas Fragrant sumac Rhus aromatica xx Sagebrush Shrublands, Riparian Areas Gambel oak Quercus gambelii XX Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nquseosa xxx Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas, Saeebrush Shrublands Western serviceberry Amelanchier alnifulia xxx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas Wyoming big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis xxx Shale Slopes, Mountain Shrubland, Disturbed Areas *Abundance: x: uncommon frequency, xx: moderate frequency, xxx: common frequency WestWater Engineering Page 4 of l7 January 2024 3.0 R.EVEGETATIONO RECLAMATION, & SOILS RECOMMENDATIONS Successful reclamation ofthe project area is dependent upon soil type and texture, slope gradient and aspect, proper weed control, available water, and revegetation with suitable plant species. Reclamation services using multiple seed bin range drills and specialized equipment are available and should be used for reclamation seeding projects. 3.1 Soil Preparation Compaction can reduce water infiltration and also hinder the penetration of the sprouting seed. Practices that will reduce compaction and prepare the seedbed include: scarification, tillage, or harrowing. In areas with slope greater than three percent or where laminar flows from runoff could affect reseeding success, 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 fiilizinghydro-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 simplest 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. 3.2 Soil Amendments The addition of soil amendments in rangeland reclamation projects can create more optimal growing conditions for non-native or invasive plant species, with which native plants compete poorly. There is potential that the use of soil amendments (fertilizer) containing nitrogen will disproportionately benefit undesirable annual plants (Perry et al. 2010). If the company determines the use of soil amendments to be beneficial, the type and rate should be based on results from lab analysis of soil samples collected at the site. A potentially beneficial alternative method to enhance reclamation success, particularly where there is poor or destroyed topsoil, is the application of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). These fungi, mostly of the genus Glomlrs) are symbiotic with about 80 percent of all vegetation. Endo- mycorrhizal fungi are associated mostly with grasses and forbs and could be helpful in reclamation. In symbiosis, the fungi can increase water and nutrient transfer capacity of the host root system (Barrow and McCaslin 1995). Over-the-counter commercial products are available, and the best products should contain more than one fungus species. 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 can benefit reclamation efforts on compacted soils when applied as directed. 3.3 Seed Mixture The primary vegetation communities that would be disturbed by the pipeline alignment include reclaimed areas, sagebrush shrublands, and pasturelands. The recommended seed mix below (Table 3) is adapted from the Bureau of Land Management's Colorado River Valley Field Office seed menu recommendations (BLM 2021). The seed mix is well suited for the vegetation communities present along the pipeline alignment. The mix includes perennial native grasses and forbs that should establish well, protect topsoil, and provide a basis for rehabilitation of the site upon reclamation. Portions of the project area that are privately owned may be subject to landowner-requested modifications to the seed mixture. WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 17 January 2024 Comtnon Name Species Name Variety Seeds per Pound PLS lhs/acre Plant All of the Following Grasses (15% of Mix Each, 45o/o Total) Indian Ricegrass Achnstherum hymenoides Native Colorado/Utah source, or Nezpar, Paloma, Rimrock 141,000 2.8 Thickspike Wheatgrass Elymus lanceolatus Citana, Schwendimar 154,000 2.5 Western Wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii UP* or native Colorado/Utah source or Arriba, Recovery, Rodan, Rosana 110,000 3.6 And Three of the Following Grasses (10% of Mix Each,30% Total) Bottlebrush Squirreltail Elymus elymoides Native Colorado/Utah source, or Fish Creek, Toe Jam Creek, Wapiti 192,000 1,4 Slender Wheatgrass EIymus trachycaulus San Luis 159,000 1.6 Sandberg Bluegrass Poa secunda "sandbergii" UP* Colorado-Sims Mesa or High Mesa 882,000 0.3 Bluebunch Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Native Colorado/Utah source, or Anatone, Goldar 140,000 2.8 Needle-and-Thread Achnatherum nelsonii Hesperostipa comata Native sources within 500 miles preferred 150,000/ 225,0001 115,000 0.91 0.61 1.1 Sand Dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus UP* Dolores or native Colorado/Utah source preferred 1,750,000 0.1 And @ of the Following Shrubs/Subshrubs (57o of Mix Eachrl0oh Total) Fourwing Saltbush Atriplex canescens Native Colorado/Utah source preferred 50,000 2.6 Broom Snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae Native Colorado/Utah source preferred 1,600,000 0.1 Winterfat Krascheninnikovia lanata Native Colorado/Utah source preferred 123,000 l l And Five of the Following Forbs (3% of Mix Each, 157o Total) * Common Name Scientilic Name PLS lbs/acre Common Name Scientific Name PLS lbs/acre American Vetch Viciq americ(tna 2.4 Prairie Coneflower Ratibida columnifera 0.1 1 Table 3. Recommended Seed Mix WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 17 January 2024 Arrowleaf Balsamroot Bqlsamorhiza sagittata 1.2 Scarlet Gilia Ipomopsis aggregata 0.18 Blanketflower Gaillardia aristats 0.5 Scarlet Globemallow Sphaeralcea coccinea 0 I J Fernleaf Biscuitroot Lomatium dissectum 1.5 Silvery Lupine Lupinus argenteus 3.6 Great Basin Penstemon Penstemon subglaber 0.19 Sulphur Buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum 0.3 Hairy Goldenaster Heterotheca villosa 0.1 Thickleaf Penstemon Penstemon pachyphyllus 0.3 Hoary Tansy-aster Machaeranthera canescens 0.15 Utah Sweetvetch Hedysarum boreale 1.4 Lewis Blue Flax Linum lewisii 0.4 Westem Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.02 *Preferred source: Uncompahgre Project (UP), Kathy See, nativeplant@upartnership.ors,9T0-240-9498, 970-901-8247 if available; otherwise another native Colorado/Utah source is preferred. For best results and success, reseeding should be done in late autumn. The seed application rate should be doubled for broadcast applications such as hydroseeding or hand broadcasting of seed (CNHP 1 998). 3.4 Seeding Methods Typically, the preferred seeding method would be with a multiple-seed-bin range drill with no soil preparation other than simple grading to slope and imprinting and water bars where applicable. This method would likely be the most economical method. Hydroseeding or hand-broadcast seeding at twice the recommended drill seed rate will be required for steep slopes or for smaller areas where drill seeding would be impractical or dangerous. Altemative seeding methods include, but are not limited to: harrow with just enough soil moisfure to create a rough surface, broadcast seed and re-harrow, preferably at a 9O-degree angle to the first harrow; . hydroseeding; and . hand raking and broadcast followed by re-raking at a 90-degree angle to the first raking. These are not the only means of replanting the site. However, these methods have been observed to be effective in similar landscapes. After desired grasses are established and control of target weed species is successful, then shrubs, forbs, and trees can be planted without concem for herbicide damage. Few native forb seeds are available commercially as cultivars. Most are collected from natural populations. Native shrubs and forbs often do not establish well from seed, particularly when mixed with grasses. Past experience has shown that stabilizing the soil with grasses, accomplishing weed control, and then coming back to plant live, containeized woody species in copses has been the most cost-effective method for establishing the woody species component of the plant community. a WestWater Engineering PageT of 17 January 2024 For sites where soil disturbance will be temporary, grasses should be seeded after construction activities cease and the equipment is removed from the site. After two years of controlling weeds (with herbicides) and allowing the grasses to become established, forbs and woody species should be inter-seeded or hand- planted to increase the diversity and value of the reclamation plantings. 3.5 Mulching Crimped straw mulch is the most cost effective and practical method of mulching areas prone to erosion after drill seeding this site. No mulching is recommended for areas that are hydroseeded. Potential detrimental effects of mulching include the introduction of weed species and the establishment of non- native cereal grains. Use of a certified weed-free sterile wheat hybrid straw mulch would limit these effects. On steeper slopes where crimping is impractical, wood straw mulch would be an alternative to crimped straw mulch that might stand up better to wind and rain that could blow or wash uncrimped straw mulch off of seeded areas. 4.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS 4.1 Introduction to Noxious Weeds Most noxious weed species in Colorado were introduced, mostly from Eurasia, either unintentionally or as ornamentals that established wild populations. These plants compete aggressively with native vegetation and tend to spread quickly because the environmental factors that normally control them are absent. Disturbed soils, altered native vegetation communities, and areas with increased soil moisture often create prime conditions for weed infestations. The primary vectors that spread noxious weeds include humans, animals, water, and wind. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (State of Colorado 2005) requires local governing bodies to develop noxious weed management plans. Both the State of Colorado and Garfield County maintain a list of plants that are considered to be noxious weeds (Garfield County 2021). The State of Colorado noxious weed list segregates noxious weed species based on priority for control: l. List A species must be eradicated whenever detected. 2. List B species spread should be halted; may be designated for eradication in some counties. 3. List C species are widespread and the State will assist local jurisdictions which choose to manage those weeds. The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has compiled a list of 40 plants considered to be noxious weeds within the county. The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has duties to: 1. Develop a noxious weed list; 2. Develop a weed management plan for designated noxious weeds; and, 3. Recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that identified landowners submit an integrated weed management plan for their properties (Garfield County 2016). 4.2 Observations Several weed species listed by the State of Colorado (2005) have been documented in the project vicinity during previous surveys and are anticipated to be detected during upcoming surveys including: common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), houndstongue (Cynoglossum fficinale), Canada thistle (Cirsium artense), chicory (Cichorium intybus), common burdock (Arctium minus), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifulium), tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), field bindweed (Convolvulus, arvensis), whitetop (Lepidium draba), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). These noxious weeds were observed in scattered infestations primarily along previously disfurbed areas and throughout Lindauer Meadow (Figure 3). Please note WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 17 January 2024 cheatgrass is not mapped during surveys due to its widespread distribution. Other non-native weedy species (i.e. Russian thistle and horehound) not listed by the State of Colorado have also been observed in the project area along areas ofprevious disturbance. 4.3 Integrated Weed Management Control of invasive species is a difficult task and requires intensive on-going control measures. Care must be taken to avoid negatively impacting desirable plant communities and inviting infestation by other pioneer invaders. Weed management is best achieved by employing varied methods over several growing seasons, including inventory (surveys), direct treatments, prevention through best management practices, monitoring of treatment efficacy, and subsequent detection efforts. Weed management is often limited to controlling existing infestations and prevention of further infestations, rather than eradication, but through effective weed management practices eradication can be possible in small to medium sized weed populations. Assessment of the existence and extent of noxious weeds in an area is essential for the development of an integrated weed management plan. This report provides an initial assessment of the occurrence of noxious weeds for the project area. In order to continue effective management of noxious weeds, further inventory and analysis is necessary to 1) determine the effectiveness of the past treatment strategies; 2) modify the treatment plan, if necessary; and 3) detect new infestations early, which would result in more economical and effective treatments. 4.4 Prevention of Noxious Weed Infestations Weed management can be costly, and heavy infestations may exceed the economic threshold for practical treatment. Prevention is an especially valuable and economical strategy for noxious weed management. Several simple practices should be employed to prevent weed infestations. The following practices will prevent infestation and thereby reduce costs associated with noxious weed control: o Prior to delivery to the site, all equipment and vehicles, including maintenance vehicles, should be thoroughly cleaned of soils from previous sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds. o 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. o Avoid driving vehicles through areas where weed infestations exist. o Use of weed-seed-free reclamation materials such as mulch and seed. 4.5 Treatment and Control of Noxious Weed Infestations The treatment method and timing will be determined by the project proponent and their contracted licensed pesticide applicators. The recommendations provided in this report will be considered when developing annual treatment plans. General control methods for the species detected in the project area are provided for reference in Table 4. Table 4. General noxious weed control methods for in the area. Common Name* Scientific Name Type Control Methods Bull thistleB Cirsium vulgare Biennial Tillage or hand grubbing in the rosette to pre-flowering stages. Repeated mowing at bolting or early flowering. Seed head and rosette weevils, leaf feeding beetles. Herbicides in rosette stage. WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 17 January 2024 Table 4. General noxious weed control methods for in the ect area. Bold: Garfield County List, *State List A, B, or C Control MethodsCommonName* Sclentific Name Type Perennial Cutting and mowing prior to seed set, continuously and annually indefinitely; cutting and mowing combined with herbicide; cutting, herbicide, and biological (recommended). Canada thistleB Cirsium arvense Hand grubbing, digging, and hand pulling are very effective early on. There are no biological control agents. Herbicide application during rosette to bud stage can effective. Chicoryc Cichorium intybus Perennial Cut and bag seed-bearing plants from previous year, cut rosettes below soil surface with shovel or spade, cut or spot spray bolting plants; and spot spray rosettes and bolting plants annually. Common burdockc Arctiummirun Biennial Biennial Tillage, mowing, cutting, hand grubbing prior to bolting. Herbicide treatment during rosette stage or bolting stage before flowering. Common mulleinc Verbascum thapsus Hand pulling or tillage when plants first emerge, removing as much root as possible. Bag and dispose of all flowering plants. Herbicide application to rosettes in spring. Common tansyB Tanacetum vulgare Perennial Field bindweedc Convolvulus urvensis Perennial Effective control requires prevention of seed production and removal of top growth. Herbicide application in the spring or in the fall. Multiple applications are recommended. Hand pulling and tillage is not recommended for this species. For large infestations bindweed mites can help control and reduce spread. Early Spring tillage before weed emergence in the existing corridor to a depth of 2 to 4 inches. Herbicide application in Spring while plants are small and it the late fall, bagging the seed heads. HoundstongueB Cynoglossum fficinale Biennial Musk thistle B Carduus nutans Biennial Prevent seed production. Tillage or hand grubbing in the rosette to pre-flowering stages. Repeated mowing at bolting or early flowering. Gather and burn mowed debris to destroy any seed that has developed. Herbicide application to rosettes in spring or fall. Seed head and rosette weevils. Perennial pepper weedB Lepidium latifulium Perennial Suppressing the extensive root system is critical for successful control. Herbicides work best when applied at the flower bud stage. Hand pulling or tillage when plants first emerge. Salt cedar B Tamarix ramosissima Perennial Saltcedar leafbeetle. Bulldozer or prescribed fire for large stands, followed with herbicide treatment. Chainsaw and loppers for smaller stands, followed by cut stump herbicide treatment. WhitetopB Perennial For small and isolated infestations hand digging and grubbing; remove as much root as possible. For large infestations herbicide treatment at bud to early flower stage. WestWater Engineering Page l0 of 17 January 2024 4.6 Recommended Treatment Strategies The following treatment strategies are presented for reference. It is important to know whether the weed species being managed is an annual, biennial, or perennial to select strategies that effectively control and eliminate the target. Treatment strategies vary depending on plant type, which are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. Herbicides should not always be the first treatment of choice when other methods can be effectively employed. Table 5. Treatment Strategies for Annual and Biennial Noxious Weeds Prevent Seed Production (Sirota 2004) Table 6. Treatment Strategies for Perennials nutrient reserres in root seed (Sirota 2004) Some weeds, particularly annuals and biennials, can develop resistance to herbicides. The ability to quickly develop immunity to herbicides, especially when they are used incorrectly, makes it imperative to use the proper chemicals at the correct time in the specified concentration according to the product label. Excessive application, either in frequency or concentration, can result in top kill without significantly affecting the root system. Repeated excessive applications may result in resistant phenotypes. 4.7 Noxious Weed Management - Best Management Practices Construction: The following practices should be adopted for any construction project to reduce the costs of noxious weed control and aid in prevention efforts. The practices include: l. Hand grub (pull), hoe, till, cultivate in rosette stage and before flowering or seed maturity. If flowers or seeds develop, cut and bag seed heads. 2. Cut roots with a spade 2"-3" below soil level 3. Treat with herbicide in seedling, rosette or bolting stage, before flowering. 4. Mow biennials after bolting stage but before seed set. Mowing annuals will not prevent flowering but can reduce total seed production. 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 or practical. Most perennial roots can sprout from pieces only 0.5 inch - 1.0 inch long. Clean machinery thoroughly before leaving the weed patch. 5. Hand pulling is generally not recommended for perennial species unless you know the plants are seedlings and not established plants. Hand pulling can be effective on small patches but is very labor intensive because it must be done repeatedly. WestWater Engineering Page 11 of 17 January 2024 r Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be cleaned of soils remaining from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds. o Equipment and material handling should be done on established sites to reduce the area and extent of soil compaction. o In all cases, temporary disturbance should be kept to an absolute minimum. . Topsoil, where present, should be segregated from deeper soils and replaced as topsoil on the final grade, a process known as live topsoil handling. o If stored longer than one growing season, topsoil stockpiles should be seeded with non-invasive sterile hybrid grasses. . If working in weed infested sites, equipment should be cleaned of potentially seed-bearing soils and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain. o After construction, disturbed areas outside the footprint of the development should be immediately reseeded with an appropriate seed mix. Herbicides: Many of the listed noxious weed species in Colorado can be controlled with commercially available herbicides. Annual and biennial weeds are best controlled at the pre-bud stage after germination or in the spring of the second year. Selective herbicides are recommended to minimize damage to desirable grass species. It is important that applicators adhere to concentrations specified on herbicide containers. Herbicides generally do not work better at higher concentrations. Herbicide failures are frequently related to high concentrations that result in top kill before the active ingredient can be transported to the roots through the nutrient translocation process. Ifdirected on the herbicide label, a surfactant or other adjuvant should be added to the tank. Grazing: In the event gtazing is allowed in the project area, it should be deferred in reclaimed areas until revegetation ofdesirable species has been successfully established and seeded plants have had opporlunity to reproduce. Monitoring: Areas where noxious weed infestations are identified and treated should be inspected over time to ensure that control methods are working to reduce and suppress the identified infestation. The sites should be monitored until the infestations are eliminated. These inspections can then be used to prioritize future weed control efforts. 4.8 Commercial Applicator Recommendations A certified commercial pesticide applicator licensed in rangeland and/or right-of-way/industrial weed control (depending on site characteristics) is a necessary choice for herbicide control efforts. An applicator has the full range of knowledge, skills, equipment, and experience desired when dealing with tough noxious weeds. In addition, the purchase and use of restricted use herbicides requires a Colorado pesticide applicator license. 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. WestWater Engineering Page 12 of 17 January 2024 BLM.202l. Revised Revegetation Seed Mix Menus, CRVFO Energy Team. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Colorado River Valley Field Office. Silt, Colorado. CWMA.2007. S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran, S. Elzinga, J. Powell,I. Schonle, K. Uhing. Noxious Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial. Garfield County. 2016. Garfreld County Vegetation Management and Garfield County Weed Advisory Board. Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan, Adopted by Board of County Commissioners Feb. 16, 201.6. Garfield County. 202l.Yegetation Management Section -Noxious Weed List. Available online: http://www.garfield-county.com/vegetation-management/noxious-weed-list.aspx. Rifle, CO. NRCS. 2024. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Perry, L.G., D.M. Blumenthal, T.A. Monaco, M.W. Paschke, and E.F. Redente.2010.Immobilizing nitrogen to control plant invasion. Oecologia: 163:12-24. Sirota, Judith M.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. WestWater Engineering Page 13 of17 January 2024 Figure 1 Caerus Oil & Gas Middle Fork to Williams 16 lnch Pipeline Reclamation, Revegetation, & Noxious Weed Management Plan Location A\Nestl,eter Enqlneering? co:utns tq,neia so.'tn, 0 zso 5,0@rFd 2024 ,i,. .e,bo "t- q 1't 'cl l \ Projed Localion GAR'IE6 COUNfr t nrltr ll- 28 23 . ii.r- iI .t llo'l rl't I Sr,nq . o 03 T5S R95Ut T6S.R96W'i' 04,/ ' . _ j zis .-" -a' ..05 a 0.6 :sfi,iia7 .Sptiry eg--j--. Da_vi9 Point ia :",'gorcn I i'.! i eh !:r.-> Legend : Pip€line - Road l---l eLu Figure 2 Caerus Oil & Gas Xliddle Fort to Williarns 16 lnch Pipeline Reclamaton, Revegetation, & Noxlous Weed llanagement Plan ltlif'lestll6ter Engineering tCtr!ftEEdiners&ffi 2024 Solls Project Location iL 1,-! fl I t" .}t a 30 I a :f .,ttln lB- ,.! t l '-t fi coeassols -* R@d l-*l eLi,t L€end :m Pipeline Figure 3 Caerus Oil & Gas iliddle Fork to Williams 16 lnch Pipetine Reclamation, Revegetation, & Norlous Weed ilanagement Plan Norious Weods 9H,KH*:,J#T: c@m Fet 2024 POect Localion i: l1 F a 30 I tt, dt'.t,:f .5.,' /i\ ;'.f 't -tt ,,S! {l "r l..l Legend I Eull rhistle I Canadathi$le O CtEatg€ss Chicory Commoa hdo* Comrcn mullein $ Commn tansy $ fien urnowo a Horehound a Hdnddongue : Mugk lhigle O PeGnnial Fpp€t@d Ru$ran thistle a Ta@risk ; l4/hiletop :|r PipeJine - R@d f'--l eLi,r ' ''t t ,r a A t t 3 "t O -brr, ,. t+l' t* Ip ts I\.. = E II r t + ..f'{|