HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.18 Wildlife_Veg RptArticle 4-203.G.6
Wildlife and Vegetation
Impact Analysis
Ursa Operating Company
Battlement Mesa Land
Investments
Major Impact Review Application
Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I
BMC D
OAProject No. 014-1829
Ursa Operating Company
BMC B & D Locations
Impact Analysis: Section 4-203-G (8) Environmental Impacts
Garfield County Land Use and Development Code
Cover photo: View of existing conditions near BMC B location.
Prepared for:
Ursa Operating Company, LLC.
Prepared by:
WestWater Engineering
2516 Foresight Circle #1
Grand Junction, CO 81505
In cooperation with:
Olsson Associates, Inc.
MAANZ
Nicholas Jaramillo, Biologist/Environmental Scientist
September 2014
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
At the request of Olsson Associates, Inc. (Olsson), on behalf of Ursa Operating Company, LLC. (Ursa),
WestWater Engineering (WestWater) has prepared this Garfield County Impact Analysis for the BMC B
and D well pad locations, which are part of Ursa's Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development.
This project would be located on private lands in Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 95 West, Sixth
Principal Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). The current primary uses of the project area
are Battlement Mesa community support services, private residences, rangeland, and wildlife habitat.
Survey Methods
The project area was evaluated for the potential occurrence of special status plants and wildlife, raptors,
noxious weeds, and potential Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. by WestWater
biologists on September 1-2, 2014. The survey took place during the latter stages of the active growth
period for plants in the project area, aiding the detection of weed species. The survey occurred very late in
the active nesting season for migratory birds and raptors in the project area. Based on existing survey
data, literature review, and firsthand knowledge and experience of biological resources in the
geographical area, WestWater biologists have made estimates regarding the plant and animal species
which may or may not be present in the project area.
Vegetation communities were determined through aerial photography, on -the -ground assessments, 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 2007, 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 2014).
Raptor and special status wildlife species surveys were conducted on foot within 0.25 miles of project
features within suitable habitats for these species. Noxious weed conditions are reported in an Integrated
Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan (IVNWMP) that was prepared separately for this
project (WestWater 2014). Data locations were recorded using handheld Global Positioning System
(GPS) units (Datum: NAD83, Zone 12) and photographs were taken of the habitat, terrain, and biological
features found during the survey.
SECTION 4-203-G (8) - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
WATERS OF THE U.S. — Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
The proposed B pad site is located in an upland area with relatively flat terrain, which is essentially the
second terrace above the Colorado River flood plain. The terrain slopes gradually in the direction of the
river and the elevation along the north edge of the pad is approximately 20-25 feet higher than the banks
of the river. No drainages showing characteristics of Waters of the U.S. occur in the pad area. The
northeast corner of the proposed pad site is approximately 130 feet from the southern boundary of the
100 -year flood plain of the river. The eastern edge of the pad may be located within 25-50 feet of a
potential wetland (Figure 2). No formal wetland assessments have been conducted at the site to date;
however, vegetation (willows, cattails, sedges) and the presence of flowing surface water indicates a
potential jurisdictional Water of the U.S. The D pad is located in an upland area and WestWater biologists
determined that no ACOE jurisdictional wetlands or drainages showing characteristics of Waters of the
U.S. would be directly affected at the proposed pad site.
North of the D pad and across the improved road, numerous seeps and springs were observed during
surveys. The underlying basalt rock apparently provides an aquifer that transports water from the uplands
WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 16 September 2014
to the south, and subsurface water daylights as the terrain drops off near the south bank of the Colorado
River. It is likely that these are perennial waters and are sufficient to support the abundant trees and
understory vegetation observed in this area.
VEGETATION
Vegetation communities around the project area have been altered by historic agriculture practices,
natural erosion, presence of motor vehicle and equipment storage, and disposal sites for trimmed
landscaping vegetation. The natural vegetation consists of a mixture of greasewood (Sarcobatus
vermiculatus), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), and sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) with an
understory of primarily non-native cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). A few immature juniper trees
(Juniperus osteosperma) were observed within the D pad site. Three mature cottonwood trees are located
within the boundary of the proposed B pad site. Other vegetation observed in the area includes Indian
ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), kochia (Bassia prostrata), Russian thistle (Salsola spp.),
cheatgrass, smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). Cottonwood
(Populus spp.), box -elder (Acer negundo), and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) are the primary woodland
trees observed in the area east of the B pad and north of the D pad site. Common shrubs in this wooded
area include skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), tamarisk
(Tamarix ramosissima), greasewood, and sagebrush.
The climate for the Colorado River valley is considered semi -arid with a wide range of temperatures and
precipitation. The average annual precipitation in the region ranges between 10 and 14 inches, and
temperatures range from about 95 degrees F in the summer months to -5 degrees F during the winter
months.
Threatened and Endangered Plant Species
The occurrence and distribution of special status plants in this region are strongly influenced by geologic
formations and the resulting soil types present in an area. Individual plant populations are scattered and
are usually only comprised of a small number of individual plants. This is primarily a result of specific
soil and moisture requirements of each species and the high variability in the distribution and surface
exposure of the layers within the formation. Special status plants known to occur in Garfield County are
listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Threatened and endangered 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
No special status plants were detected during surveys. Colorado hookless cactus is a habitat generalist that
can occur in habitats similar to the project area. The nearest known population of this species is located
approximately 4.75 miles southwest of the project location. The habitat present is not suitable for the
other species listed in Table 1.
Results of this survey and other surveys conducted in the project area in addition to review of the
Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide (Spackman et al. 1997) and WestWater's sensitive species database
indicate that no special status plant species have been documented in the project area.
Noxious Weeds
Noxious weed infestations, control techniques, and revegetation recommendations are reported in an
IVNWMP that was prepared for this project (WestWater 2014). Noxious weed species listed by the State
of Colorado (2005) detected within a 30 meter buffer of the pads include Canada thistle (Cirsium
WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 16 September 2014
arvense), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), common burdock (Arctium minus), houndstongue (Cynoglossum
officinale), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima). Unlisted nuisance
weed species present in disturbed areas included kochia (Bassia scoparia), Russian thistle (Salsola spp.),
puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris), tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum), and prostrate knotweed
(Polygonum aviculare).
WILDLIFE
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species
The project area was evaluated for threatened and endangered wildlife species listed in Garfield County
(Table 2) (USFWS 2014).
Table 2. Threatened and endangered wildlife species for Garfield County.
_ Common Name
Scientific Name
Status I
Bonytail
Gila elegans
Endangered
Canada lynx
Lynx canadensis
Threatened
Colorado pikeminnow
Ptychocheilus lucius
Endangered
Greater Sage -grouse
Centrocercus urophasianus
Candidate
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
* Recent genetic studies indicate that pure greenback cutthroat trout likely do not exist in western Colorado. Until the review and
rulemaking process is complete, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is recommending that "Lineage GB" cutthroat trout, which do
exist in western Colorado, 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 adjacent to the B pad project area and could be affected by water depletions,
increased sedimentation, and spills of hazardous materials. 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).
Riparian cottonwood habitat in the project area is not sufficient in size (less than 5 hectares/12.35 acres)
and lacks the understory composition required for Yellow -billed Cuckoo. No other species listed in Table
2 would be expected to occur near the site, as habitat conditions are not appropriate for these species.
Raptors
At least fifteen raptor species may be found in suitable habitats surrounding the project area (Table 3).
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 have also been observed frequently along the
Colorado River in recent years.
Table 3. Raptor species that may occur and nest in the vicinity of 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
WestWater Engineering
Page 3of16
September 2014
Table 3. Raptor species that may occur and nest in the vicinity of the project area.
Common Name
Scientific Name _
BCC*
Great Horned Owl
Bubo virginianus
No
Long-eared Owl
Asio otus
No
Northern Harrier
Circus cyaneus
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 2008)
+ State species of concern (CPW 2014b)
§BLM sensitive species (BLM 2009)
The raptor survey was conducted late in the nesting season for most species in the area. One active
Swainson's Hawk nest was observed in the riparian woodlands north of the D pad (Figure 3). A single
chick was still in the nest and a single adult was observed flying in the vicinity of the nest. The chick was
large, and likely within a week of fledging. One unoccupied potential raptor nest was detected within 0.25
miles of the D pad (Figure 3). At this site there was no sign (whitewash, feathers, prey remains, fresh
nesting materials) on the nest or on the ground to indicate that nest had been active during the 2014
nesting season. The riparian and upland woodlands within 0.25 miles of the proposed pads provide
suitable raptor nesting habitat.
No known Bald Eagle nest sites are located within the project area. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)
records indicate that the project area is within Bald Eagle winter range and adjacent to CPW mapped Bald
Eagle winter roost sites (CPW 2014a) (Figure 3). According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission's amended rules, effective April 1, 2009, Bald Eagle roost sites are included in the rules as
sensitive wildlife habitat (COGCC 2009). The CPW at this time does not have timing restrictions for Bald
Eagle roost sites; however, a consultation with the CPW is recommended for the protection of sensitive
wildlife habitat as defined in the COGCC rules.
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 or remove the need to list
additional species under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2008). The survey was conducted very late
in the annual nesting cycle, when many neo -tropical migrant bird species have begun to migrate. A
thorough literature review was conducted to identify BCC species with potential to occur during peak
nesting season (Table 4) (Andrews & Righter 1992, Kingery 1998, Righter et al. 2004).
Table 4. BCC sensitive species that may occur in the nroiect area.
1
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat Description -
Potential to Occur
Brewer's Sparrow
Spizella breweri
Sagebrush shrublands.
May occur in sagebrush
shrublands.
Cassin's Finch
Carpodacus
cassinii
Mostly high elevation, montane forests, but
known at the upper elevation limits of
pinyon juniper habitats.
Unlikely to occur due
to low elevation.
WestWater Engineering
Page 4 of 16
September 2014
Table 4. BCC sensitive species that may occur in the nroiect area.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat Description
Potential to Occur
Juniper Titmouse
Baeolophus
griseus
Pinyon juniper woodlands.
Unlikely to occur due
to lack of pinyon -
juniper woodlands.
Lewis's
Woodpecker
Melanerpes
lewis
Pinyon juniper woodlands, riparian areas,
open pine forests, and cottonwoods.
May occur in suitable
habitats.
Pinyon Jay
Gymnorhinus
cyanocephalus
Pinyon juniper woodlands.
Unlikely to occur due
to lack of pinyon -
juniper woodlands.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidance indicates that developments may potentially affect nesting
migratory birds within 100 -feet of a project. No nesting was observed, as surveys were conducted after
the end of the nesting season.
The shrublands, understory grasses, and nearby riparian cottonwood -box -elder woodlands in the project
area provide nesting and foraging habitat for various other migratory and non -migratory bird species,
depending on the season of the year. American Crow, American Robin, Barn Swallow, Black -billed
Magpie, Cedar Waxwing, Common Raven, House Finch, Mourning Dove, Northern Flicker, Red -
breasted Nuthatch, Red-tailed Hawk, Spotted Sandpiper, Swainson's Hawk, Turkey Vulture, Western
Meadowlark, and Western Scrub jay were observed. A multitude of other bird species is likely to occur in
the project area.
American Elk and Mule Deer
The project area is within CPW Game Management Unit 42 and is within mule deer and elk winter range,
a mule deer critical winter range, and an elk winter concentration area (Figure 4) as mapped by the
CPW's Natural Diversity Information Source (NDIS).
Mule deer winter concentration areas and severe winter ranges, and elk winter concentration areas are
considered "sensitive wildlife areas" under Section 1200 of the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission (COGCC) Rules (COGCC 2009) and are defined as follows:
Big game "Winter Range" is defined as "that part of the overall range where 90 percent of the
individuals are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall to
spring green -up".
"Winter Concentration Area" is defined as "that part of the winter range where densities are at
least 200% of the surrounding winter range density during the same period used to define winter
range in 5 out of 10 winters."
"Severe Winter Range" is defined as "that part of the winter range where 90% of the individuals
are located during the average 5 winters out of 10 from the first heavy snowfall to spring green-
up.„
"Critical Winter Range" for mule deer includes both "Winter Concentration Areas" and mule
deer "Severe Winter Range."
Elk and mule deer utilize the range in the vicinity of the project area; droppings from both species were
observed. Fresh mule deer tracks were observed along the banks of the Colorado River indicating a small
resident population. Elk are more likely to use the habitat adjacent to the pad sites during the winter. Mule
deer rely on the existing sagebrush, forbs, and other woody shrubs for their primary food source, while
elk rely primarily on available grasses for food. Areas within the riparian woodlands east of the B pad and
north of the D pad provide forage and as well as escape, thermal, and loafing cover for deer and elk.
WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 16 September 2014
Black Bear and Mountain Lion
No black bears or mountain lions were observed during the survey. Black bear sign (scat) was observed at
two locations; one east (475 ft) of the B pad and a second west (935 ft) of the B pad near the Colorado
River. In both instances, the droppings were recently (<2 weeks) deposited by the bear indicating summer
use. CPW NDIS mapping shows the project area to be within overall range for black bear and mountain
lion (Figures 5 and 6). Much of the project area is also within NDIS mapped black bear and mountain
lion -human conflict areas (CPW 2014a) (Figures 5 and 6). The NDIS website defines a human conflict
area as "the portion of the bear or lion's overall range where two or more confirmed complaints per
season were received which results in a CPW investigation, damage to persons or property (except
livestock) and/or removal of the problem animal."
Black bear are transient species in the project area due to the distribution of adequate food sources. Black
bears are omnivorous and their diet depends largely on what foods are seasonally available, although their
mainstay is vegetation. In spring, emerging grasses and succulent forbs are favored. In summer and early
fall, bears take advantage of a variety of berries and other fruits. In late fall, preferences are for berries
and acorns, where available. When the opportunity is present, black bears consume a diversity of insects,
including beetle larvae and social insects (ants, wasps, bees, termites, etc.), and mammals, including
rodents, rabbits, and young or unwary ungulates. Black bear are hibernate from mid-November through
April or May.
Mountain lion typically follow migrating deer herds as deer are their primary food source. Mountain lion
have large territories and are highly mobile as they search for food or new territories. Mountain lion
prefer to hunt in rocky terrain near woodland habitats. These habitat conditions occur near the project
area. Mountain lion could occur in the project area year-round.
Small Mammals
Common small mammal species (small game, forbearers, non -game) that may be present in the project
area include coyote (Canis latrans), North American beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), golden -mantled ground squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis), northern
pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), desert cottontail (Syvilagus audubonii), white-tailed jackrabbit
(Lepus townsendii), rock squirrel (Spermophilus variegatus), and least chipmunk (Tamias minimus).
An active beaver pond with fresh tracks and in maintenance mud on the dam was observed along the
Colorado River approximately 330 feet north of the B pad.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Bull snake (Pituophis catenifer), collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris), plateau striped whiptail
(Cnemidophorus velox), racer (Coluber constrictor), sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciousus), short -
horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi), and western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), are
reptiles potentially occurring in the project area (Hammerson 1999). Midget faded rattlesnake (Crotalus
viridis concolor), a State species of concern (CPW 2014b), has been observed by WestWater biologists
north of Parachute and may also occur in the project area. Sagebrush lizards were observed in areas
outside of the proposed disturbance areas of both pads.
Northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), a State species of concern (CPW 2014b) may occur in
wetland areas near the project. Woodhouse's toad (Bufo/Anaxyrus woodhousii) and Great Basin spadefoot
(Spea intermontana) potentially occur in the project area. Numerous adult bull frogs (Lithobates
catesbeianus) were observed on the river banks and in backwater areas along the Colorado River.
Aquatic Species
The Colorado River north of the B pad is suitable habitat for numerous indigenous and non-native fish
species. The small wash east of the B pad does not have sufficient habitat to support fish species. Fishes
potentially occurring in the river include black bullhead (Ameiurus melas), bluegill (Lepomis
WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 16 September 2014
macrochirus), bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus), brown trout (Salmo trutta), channel catfish
(Ictalurus punctatus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas),
flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis),
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), and white sucker
(Catostomus commersonii).
The backwater area on the south side of the river and immediately north of the proposed B pad is suitable
habitat for many fish species. Due to its location, structure, quiet water, depth, and abundant vegetation it
is a suitable palustrine habitat and a nursery area for many fish species. At least one species of minnow or
immature fish species was observed in a beaver pond along the south side of the river.
SECTION 4-203 G (8) (a) - DETERMINATION OF LONG AND SHORT-TERM EFFECTS ON
FLORA AND FAUNA
FLORA
Removal of vegetation would take place on approximately 2.19 acres for the BMC D pad and
approximately 3.3 acres for the B pad. The projects would occur in fragmented habitats and altered
vegetative communities adjacent to significant residential developments. Additional modification and
development would have minimal landscape scale effects but would contribute to cumulative effects on a
local scale. No special status plant occurrences are known to exist nearby and no effects would occur. The
sites are moderately to heavily infested with noxious weeds; weed conditions in the area are discussed in
further detail in an accompanying IVNWMP prepared by WestWater for this project (WestWater 2014).
The potential wetland east of the B pad (Figure 2) could potentially be affected by excavated, side cast, or
other fill material during construction of the pad. Proper marking and temporary fencing could be erected
to reduce the likelihood of inadvertent impacts to potential wetland areas.
The riparian and upland woodlands north of the D pad could potentially be affected by filling with soil as
runoff from the D pad could carry eroded soil material.
FAUNA
Colorado River Endangered Fishes and Other Fishes
Designated critical habitat for two endangered fish species (Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker)
occurs in the Colorado River adjacent to, above, and below the project, and critical habitat for two
additional species (bonytail and humpback chub) occurs near Grand Junction (Maddux et al. 1993).
Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker have been documented in the river nearly to Rifle (W. R.
Elmblad, retired CDOW fisheries biologist, pers. comm.). Other fish non -listed species also inhabit the
Colorado River in the project area.
Potential impacts could include water depletions and runoff from storm events or snowmelt that carry
increased sediment loads or pollutants to the river. The potential wetlands east (small wash) and north
(Colorado River backwater) of the B pad could potentially be protected by channeling stormwater runoff
to the west and then north around the pad perimeter such that water would enter the river channel directly
rather than be filtered through the wetland area.
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 degree of mitigation for any potential impacts.
WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 16 September 2014
Raptors
Three mature cottonwood trees suitable for raptor nesting would be affected by the BMC B pad site; no
raptor nests were detected in these trees. There is low potential for long-term effects other than the loss of
foraging habitat within the footprint of the project. Short-term effects include temporary displacement of
raptors in an avoidance area immediately surrounding the well pads due to increased human presence and
equipment activity associated with construction, operation, and maintenance. The proximity of the B pad
to Bald Eagle foraging, roost, and winter range may cause temporary displacement of birds. Bald Eagles
along the Colorado River corridor appear to habituate to impacts associated with development if no direct
disturbance occurs.
American Elk and Mule Deer
Loss of foraging habitat will occur within the footprint of the project. No migration corridors would be
affected. Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution by creating avoidance areas and
increasing stress on wintering big game. Due to significant human presence, deer and elk that winter in
this area have become habituated to human activity and the indirect effects of avoidance and displacement
is diminished.
An increase in vehicle traffic could result in additional vehicle related wildlife mortality, although
additional traffic resulting from this project would contribute minimally, given current traffic volumes on
the existing roads.
Fences can pose an increased risk to big game and any fencing around the facility should be constructed
according to published standards that reduce impacts to big game (Hanophy 2009).
Black Bear and Mountain Lion
Potential encounters of black bear with personnel could occur if garbage or food is available to resident
bears and incidences of human -black bear interactions sometimes result in the euthanasia of offending
bears by the CPW. An increase in traffic could result in vehicle related mortalities, although the
contribution from this project is expected to be low.
Small Mammals, Birds (BCC), and Reptiles
A relatively small amount of suitable habitat will be directly lost during pad construction. The greatest
potential loss would occur during the nesting season for passerine species that select nest sites in
greasewood and sagebrush shrublands. Any loss of this nature could be avoided by clearing vegetation
prior to the nesting season, which typically begins in early May each year; most nesting is complete by
late July. Human presence and activity may affect animal distribution. An increase in traffic could result
in vehicle related mortalities, although the contribution from this project is expected to be low.
SECTION 4-203 G (8) (b) — DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECT ON SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Development of the project would not be expected to significantly affect biological resources if
precautions are taken during construction and potential post -construction mitigation techniques are used
to protect natural resources. This project would result in a contribution to cumulative effects of habitat
alteration and fragmentation on a local scale.
WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 16 September 2014
SECTION 4-203 G (8) (c) – IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS
Creation of hazardous conditions: Fencing of the project sites may introduce a hazard for big
game. Some passerine bird species and small mammals may choose to inhabit or nest on
equipment or objects on these locations. The inherent risks associated with these structures are
low. 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.
Indirect Construction Effects: Additional human presence and activity related to construction,
operation, and maintenance of the facilities may influence spatial and temporal use of habitat
surrounding the project by wildlife. Since the site exists within and adjacent to significant and
long-term human presence, the additional disturbance from this project is expected to be low.
Road -kill: Speed limits are set low and most wildlife in the area has become habituated to
vehicle traffic. The potential for increased vehicle related mortalities related to this project should
be low.
Wetland and Water of the U.S. Impacts: Construction of the BMC B Pad has potential to affect
wetlands and Waters of the U.S. by introducing fill, either directly during construction or
indirectly from runoff, as the eastern edge of the pad may be located within 25-50 feet of a
potential wetland (Figure 2). 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 degree of mitigation for any potential impacts.
Endangered Fish Species: Potential impacts could include water depletions and runoff from
storm events or snowmelt that carry increased sediment loads or pollutants to the river.
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. 2014a. Natural Diversity Information Source—Colorado Division of Wildlife. Available online:
http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp.
CPW. 2014b. State of Colorado species of concern list. Available online:
http://wildlife. state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/Pages/SpeciesOfConcernl .aspx.
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.
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
WFencingWithWildlifelnMind.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.
WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 16 September 2014
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. 2014. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service,
Available online: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
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. 2008. 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. 2012. Updated position paper on ESA consultations on greenback cutthroat trout, including the
cutthroat trout referred to as Lineage GB. Updated Oct 4, 2012.
USFWS. 2014. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species List for the State of Colorado.
Available online:
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrencelndividual.j sp?state=CO.
Accessed February 3, 2014.
Weber, W. A., and R. C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Western Slope. Fourth Edition, University
Press of Colorado, Boulder.
WestWater. 2014. Integrated vegetation and noxious weed management plan for Ursa Operating, LLC.'s
BMC B & D Locations. 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 10 of 16 September 2014
309
301
Project Location
Legend
Q30 Meter Weeds Survey Area
1/4 Mile Raptor Survey Area
F-1 Pad Disturbance
County Road
BLM
T7S R96W
Figure 1
Ursa Operating Company
BMC B & D Pads
Biological Survey
Location
P'tWestWater Engineering
Consulting Engineers Si Scientists
September 2014
Legend
Beaver Dam
Q Garfield County 100 Year Flood Plain
Potential Wetlands
n Pad Disturbance
County Road
BLM
Figure 2
Ursa Operating Company
BMC B & D Pads
Biological Survey
Wetlands
elMestWater Engineering
Consulting Engineers & Scientists
D 0.1 0.2
Miles
September 2014
rap ource. ordilleran ompliance erre (• sson ,ssoc
',Ursa : a . c • -a.sb,
figure mx. rl: 11. ..
Project Location
Legend
Occupied Raptor Nest
Unoccupied Raptor Nest
Raptor Suitable Habitat
Bald Eagle Roost Site
Bald Eagle Winter Range
1/4 Mile Raptor Survey Area
I—I Pad Disturbance
County Road
BLM
la Source. .l or.1 -ran ori is
Figure 3
Ursa Operating Company
BMC B & D Pads
Biological Survey
Raptors
AWestWater Engineering
Consulting Engineers & Scientists
0 01 02
03
Miles
September 2014
ce ervice • sew • ssocr Irsa:r .: ■ •a.sV.1
figure 01
. tl> rt• rb.
44* '1
I=11 Elk Winter Concentration Area
® Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area
Mule Deer Severe Winter Range
Pad Disturbance
County Road
`�-Figure 4
�,,��,�1Ursa Operating Company
WO
4'�►��BMCB&DPads
,�j�. .'�. Btologtcal Survey
►_, ..4t���,���,���` Mule Deer and Elk Activities
,�,',,,ii�,,,��!".� i� 4 WestW9te9 Engineering
"0._i �,1� �S,i� �oConCsultin En mee00 2 Scientists
� R96W T7S R95W i , S
i �� �� � Miles
� .4A44 •,�L�,Aff ii i September 2414
Map Source
.Cordilieran Compliance Service (Olsson Assoc)4Ursa4BMC B & D Pads'.20141GIS1Figure 4.mxd 915.'2014 rbb
Project Location
COU,/
300
�R o
FGAR VELD COUNTY
BMC B Pad
Legend
0 Black Bear Scat
Black Bear Overall Range
Black Bear Human Conflict Area
Pad Disturbance
County Road
BLM
T7R96/W T7S'R95W
f
0
Figure 5
Ursa Operating Company
BMC B & D Pads
Biological Survey
Black Bear Activities
WestWater Engineering
Consulting Engineers & Scientists
0.1 0.2
0.3
Miles
September 2014
Map Source: Z:'Cordllleran Compliance Service (Olsson Assaoj.Ursa1BMC B & O Pads12914\G[STigure 5,raxd 919/2014 rbb
PARACHUTE
9
Rog
1
07
OM
Tor;
.e.o
GARFIELD COUNTY
Project Location
000
R`1
1.3
Legend
CMMountain Lion Overall Range
Mountain Lion Human Conflict Area
E-1 Pad Disturbance
County Road
BLM
BMC D Pad
4S"
BMC B Pad
18
307
POAO
136
ROAD
Figure 6
Ursa Operating Company
BMC B & D Pads
Biological Survey
Mountain Lion Activities
I'LWestWater Engineering
Consulting Engineers & Scientists
0 01 0.2
Miles
03
!1p September 2014
Map Sou ee. Z. 0ordilleran Camp ce Service (Olsson Assoc hlll rsalf MC 0 8 D Pads120145GIS\Figure 6.mxd 9/812014 rbb
Ursa Operating, LLC.
BMC B & D Locations
Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas
Garfield County Land Use and Development Code
WILDLIFE
Riparian and Aquatic Species
Runoff from storms or snowmelt may carry increased sediment loads or pollutants from the well pads to
riparian and aquatic habitats. Implementation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan
(SPCC), a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), and Best Management Practices (BMPs) typically
associated with this type of project will provide a good degree of mitigation for any potential impacts.
Unmitigated water depletions associated with the project could affect aquatic species.
Consideration should be given to construction of sedimentation ponds to capture runoff from the
completed pad sites. The proximity of the B pad to the Colorado River increases the opportunity for
sediments to be transported into wetlands and/or directly into the aquatic environment. Drainage from the
B pad should be channeled away from the potential wetlands north and east of the pad site.
Raptors
Activities associated with the project have minimal potential to directly impact raptor nesting habitat,
since few trees suitable for nesting would be removed during construction. Indirect impacts would be
related to potential disturbance associated with human activity during construction, drilling, and
completion activities. Foraging activities are unlikely to be disrupted and any effect would be very small
given the abundance of foraging habitat available. The nests detected in the survey area are screened
from the project disturbance by vegetation and topography, further mitigating any potential impact.
In cases where occupied raptor nests exist near a project and no mitigating factors are present, every effort
should be made to apply species appropriate timing and buffer distance limitations while the nest is
occupied to reduce indirect affects. If development is delayed to a future nesting season, it is
recommended that qualifed biologists reevaluate suitable nesting habitat prior to construction to
determine the locations and occupancy status of raptor nests that may exist. Due to a high ongoing level
of human activity in the general project area, it is unlikely that the project would contribute to any other
negative impacts.
American Elk, Mule Deer, and Black Bear
Implementation of the IVNWMP (WestWater 2014) would help reduce impacts from habitat loss and
alteration of native plant communities to the extent possible. A reclamation plan should be implemented
to reduce the establishment of noxious weeds in disturbed areas. Reclamation of disturbed areas not
critical for operation of the facility would replace a portion of the forage lost for mule deer and elk and
decreases the presence of noxious weeds. Low speed limits already in place on area roads mitigate
potential road kill. Any future 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.
WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 2 September 2014
Birds, Small Mammals, and Reptiles
Removal of native vegetation contributes to cumulative effects of habitat conversion and fragmentation in
Garfield County. The placement of the well pads in primarily undisturbed areas has the potential to affect
wildlife. Clearing of vegetation outside the nesting season (typically mid-May through late July in this
area) for passerine species would reduce the chances of disturbing actively nesting bird species. Small
mammals and reptiles will likely not be affected by project development. The lack of suitable wildlife
habitat at the D pad greatly reduces impacts to wildlife. Structures or equipment at the site may provide
hunting perches for raptors that prey on smaller animals in the area and may contribute to increased
predation. Low speed limits on area roads mitigate potential road kill.
PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION
Greasewood, rabbitbrush, and sagebrush are the dominant native species that would be affected by
construction of the well pads. Three large cottonwood trees will be removed during construction of the B
pad. Application of the IVNWMP (WestWater 2014) would provide a degree of mitigation for the native
vegetation that will be removed. Reducing the amount of bare ground to only the area needed for
utilization and maintenance of the well pad will help reduce the effect of the project on native vegetation
and wildlife habitat. The best method to mitigate loss of wildlife habitat and provide the greatest benefit
for wildlife is to increase the availability of native forage in the form of grasses, forbs, and shrubs.
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.
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
WFencingWithWildlifelnMind.pdf
WestWater. 2014. Integrated vegetation and noxious weed management plan for Ursa Operating, LLC.'s
BMC B & D Locations. Grand Junction.
WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 2 September 2014
Ursa Operating, LLC.
BMC B & D Locations
Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan
Garfield County, Colorado
Cover photo: View of existing conditions near the center of the proposed BMC B pad location.
Prepared for:
Ursa Operating Company, LLC.
Prepared by:
WestWater Engineering
2516 Foresight Circle #1
Grand Junction, CO 81505
In cooperation with:
Olsson Associates, Inc.
Nicholas Jaramillo, Biologi t/Environmental Scientist
September 2014
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
At the request of Olsson Associates, Inc. (Olsson), on behalf of Ursa Operating Company, LLC. (Ursa),
WestWater Engineering (WestWater) has prepared an Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed
Management Plan for the BMC B and D well pad locations, which are part of Ursa's Battlement Mesa
Planned Unit Development.
The projects are located on private lands in Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 95 West, Sixth
Principal Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado (Figure 1). The current primary status of the project sites
are rangeland and wildlife habitat adjacent to residential developments and community support services.
1.2 General Survey Information
Pedestrian surveys of the project area were conducted on September 1-2, 2014. Identification of plant
species was aided by using pertinent published field guides (Kershaw et al. 1998, Whitson et al. 2001,
CWMA 2007, Weber and Wittmann 2012). Noxious weed locations were recorded with the aid of
handheld global positioning system (GPS) receivers using NAD83 map datum, with all coordinate
locations based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system in Zone 12. Mapped soil
types, as published by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U. S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), were reviewed to determine the soil types and vegetation characteristics at the
project site (NRCS 2014).
2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING
2.1 Terrain
The terrain near the project consists primarily of gently sloping terrain above the Colorado River
floodplain. Elevation in the project area is approximately 5,000 to 5,300 feet.
2.2 Vegetation
Vegetation communities around the project area have been altered by historic agriculture practices,
natural erosion, presence of motor vehicle equipment storage, and disposal sites for trimmed landscaping
vegetation. The natural vegetation consists of a mixture of greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus),
rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), and sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) with an understory of
primarily non-native cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). A few immature juniper trees (Juniperus
osteosperma) were observed within the D pad site. Three mature cottonwood trees are located within the
boundary of the proposed B pad site. Other vegetation observed in the area includes Indian ricegrass
(Achnatherum hymenoides), kochia (Bassia prostrata), Russian thistle (Salsola ssp.), cheatgrass, smooth
brome (Bromus inermis) and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). Cottonwood (Populus spp.), box -
elder (Acer negundo), and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) are the primary woodland trees observed in the
area east of the B pad and north of the D pad site. Common shrubs in this wooded area include
skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), tamarisk (Tamarix
ramosissima), greasewood, and sagebrush.
The climate for the Colorado River valley is considered semi -arid with a wide range of temperatures and
precipitation. The average annual precipitation in the region ranges between 10 and 14 inches, and
temperatures range from about 95 degrees F in the summer months to -5 degrees F during the winter
months.
2.3 Soils
Soil types include loams and sandy to gravelly loams. Soil types present in the project area are those
commonly found along the Colorado River's floodplains and terraces. Mapped soil types, as published
by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), were
WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 10 September 2014
reviewed to determine the soil types and vegetation characteristics of the project site and surrounding
property (NRCS 2014).
Three soil types are found in the project area and include the following:
1. Arvada loam with 6 to 20 percent slopes (BMC B Pad, approximately 3.30 acres).
2. Potts loam with 6-12 percent slopes (BMC D Pad, approximately 1.83 acres).
3. Potts-Ildefonso complex with 12-25 percent slopes (BMC D Pad, approximately 0.36 acres).
3.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS
3.1 Introduction to Noxious Weeds
Most noxious weed species in Colorado were introduced, mostly from Eurasia, either unintentionally or
as ornamentals that established wild populations. These plants compete aggressively with native
vegetation and tend to spread quickly because the environmental factors that normally control them are
absent. Disturbed soils, altered native vegetation communities, and areas with increased soil moisture
often create prime conditions for weed infestations. The primary vectors that spread noxious weeds
include humans, animals, water, and wind.
The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (State of Colorado 2005) requires local governing bodies to develop
noxious weed management plans. Both the State of Colorado and Garfield County maintain a list of
plants that are considered to be noxious weeds. The State of Colorado noxious weed list segregates
noxious weed species based on priority for control:
1. List A species must be eradicated whenever detected.
2. List B species' spread should be halted; may be designated for eradication in some counties.
3. List C species are widespread and the State will assist local jurisdictions which choose to manage
those weeds.
The Garfield County Weed Advisory Board has compiled a list of 21 plants from the State list considered
to be noxious weeds within the county (Garfield County 2013) (Appendix A). The Garfield County Weed
Advisory Board has duties to:
1. Develop a noxious weed list;
2. Develop a weed management plan for designated noxious weeds; and,
3. Recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that identified landowners submit an
integrated weed management plan for their properties (Garfield County 2002).
3.2 Observations
Ten Colorado State listed weed species are found in the project area (Table 1 and Figure 1). Colorado
State B listed weeds observed in the project area were Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), houndstongue
(Cynoglossum officinale), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon
repens), and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Colorado State C listed weeds observed in the
project area were common burdock (Arctium minus), downy brome (cheatgrass — Bromus tectorum), field
bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and saltcedar (Tamarix
ramosissima). Of these State listed weeds, Canada thistle, common burdock, houndstongue, Russian
knapweed, Russian olive, and saltcedar are listed by Garfield County (Appendix A). UTM locations and
acreage of the heaviest weed infestations are described in Appendix B.
Heavy infestations of noxious weeds were observed within the project area. Russian knapweed was
observed in moderately dense infestations within and adjacent to the B pad. Dense and extensive
infestations of cheatgrass were observed within the proposed B and D pads. The understory of the D pad
WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 10 September 2014
was composed almost exclusively of thick cheatgrass. Canada thistle, Russian olive, 3altcedar,
houndstongue, and common burdock were observed in the potential wetlands north and east of the B pad.
The locations of List B and Garfield County listed weeds observed within the project area are displayed in
Figure 1 and Appendix B. Due to the extensive nature of the infestations, bindweed and cheatgrass were
not mapped on the B pad; however, cheatgrass composes almost all of the understory vegetation on the D
pad and this is shown on Figure 1.
3.5 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.
3.6 Prevention of Noxious Weed Infestations
Weed management can be costly, and heavy infestations may exceed the economic threshold for practical
treatment. Prevention is an especially valuable and economical strategy for noxious weed management.
Several simple practices should be employed to prevent weed infestations. The following practices will
prevent infestation and thereby reduce costs associated with noxious weed control:
Prior to delivery to the site, all equipment and vehicles, including maintenance vehicles, should
be thoroughly cleaned of soils from previous sites which may be contaminated with noxious
weeds.
If working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of potentially
seed -bearing soils and vegetative debris at the infested area prior to moving to uncontaminated
terrain.
Avoid driving vehicles through areas where weed infestations exist.
Use of weed free materials such as mulch and seed.
3.7 Treatment and Control of Noxious Weed Infestations
The treatment method and timing should be determined by the project proponent and their contracted
licensed pesticide applicators. The recommendations provided in this report should be considered when
developing annual treatment plans.
General control methods for the species detected in the project area are provided for reference in Table 1.
WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 10 September 2014
Table 1. Weed Treatment Methods
Common Name*
Scientific Name
Type**
Control Methods
Canada thistle B
Cirsium arvense
P
Cutting and mowing prior to seed set, continuously and annually
indefinitely; cutting and mowing combined with herbicide;
cutting, herbicide, and biological (recommended).
Common burdock`
Arctium minus
B
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.
Downy bromecA
Bromus tectorum
Prevent seed production. Apply herbicides in fall and spring in
large monocultures where there are few if any desirable grasses.
Till when plants are in the seedling stage followed by seeding
with native cool -season grasses. Avoid overgrazing. Best
management practices are most effective in preventing and
controlling infestations.
Field bindweed
Convolvulus arvensis
P
Deplete energy reserves in roots. Herbicide treatment when
plants are beginning to flower. Biological controls are available
and fairly effective for large populations growing in sunny dry
conditions. Tillage is not effective and will result in denser
populations.
HoundstongueB
Cynoglossum officinale
B
Early spring tillage before weed emergence in the existing
corridor to a depth of 2-4 inches. Herbicide application in spring
while plants are small and in the late fall, bagging the seed
heads.
Perennial pepperweedB
Lepidium latifolium
P
Deplete energy reserves in roots. Difficult to control. Apply
herbicide at bolting, early flowering or late flowering stages,
depending on herbicide used; addition of a surfactant is
recommended. Treatment will be necessary for several years.
Mowing followed by herbicide treatment can be effective in
some areas. Hand pulling and grazing are not effective.
Redstem filareeC
Erodium cicutarium
A
Prevent seed production. Apply herbicides in the fall or spring
when plants are in rosette stage. Hand digging in the rosette
stage when soil is moist can be effective for small, isolated
populations. Preventing introduction of seeds through clean
vehicles and careful management of soil stocks can help reduce
introductions. Seeding with competitive grasses and avoiding
creation of open, bare areas aids in control.
Russian knapweedB
Acroptilon repens
P
Early spring tillage at rosette stage. Herbicide applications in
spring before the plant buds and in the late fall, bagging seed
heads.
Russian olive B
Elaeagnus angustifolia
P
Mechanical treatment; herbicides; and a combination of both.
WestWater Engineering
Page 4 of 10
September 2014
Table 1. Weed Treatment Methods
Common Name*
Scientific Name
Type**
Control Methods
Saltcedar B
Tamarix ramosissima
P
Applying herbicide to foliage of intact plants; removing
aboveground stems by mechanical means followed by foliar
application of herbicide to re -sprouts; cutting stems close to the
ground followed by application of triclopyr (Garlon ®) to the cut
stems; spraying basal bark with triclopyr (Garlon ®); and)
digging or pulling plants.
* Government weed listing: Bold — Garfield County, Colorado. Superscript - Colorado State B or C list.
** Type: A = annual; B = biennial; CP = creeping perennial; P = perennial
3.6 Recommended Treatment Strategies
The following treatment strategies are presented for reference. It is important to know whether the weed
species being managed is an annual, biennial, or perennial to select strategies that effectively control and
eliminate the target. Treatment strategies vary depending on plant type, which are summarized in Tables 2
and 3. Herbicides should not always be the first treatment of choice when other methods can be
effectively employed.
Table 2. Treatment Strategies for Annual and Biennial Noxious Weeds
Target: Prevent Seed Production
1. Hand grub (pull), hoe, till, cultivate in rosette stage and before flowering or seed maturity. If 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.
(Sirota 2004)
Table 3. Treatment Strategies for Perennials
Target: Deplete nutrient reserves in root system, prevent seed production
1. Allow plants to expend as much energy from root system as possible. Do not treat when first emerging
in spring but allow growth to bud/bloom stage. If seeds develop cut and bag if possible.
2. Herbicide treatment at bud to bloom stage or in the fall (recommended after August 15 when natural
precipitation is present). In the fall plants draw nutrients into the roots for winter storage. Herbicides
will be drawn down to the roots more efficiently at this time due to translocation of nutrients to roots
rather than leaves. If the weed patch has been present for a long period of time another season of seed
production is not as important as getting the herbicide into the root system. Spraying in fall (after
middle August) will kill the following year's shoots, which are being formed on the roots at this time.
3. Mowing usually is not recommended because the plants will flower anyway, rather, seed production
should be reduced. Many studies have shown that mowing perennials and spraying the regrowth is not
as effective as spraying without mowing. Effect of mowing is species dependent therefore it is
imperative to know the species and its basic biology. Timing of application must be done when
biologically appropriate, which is not necessarily convenient.
4. Tillage may or may not be effective 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.
WestWater Engineering
Page 5of10
September 2014
Table 3. Treatment Strategies for Perennials
Target: Deplete nutrient reserves in root system, prevent seed production
5. Hand pulling is generally not recommended for perennial species unless you know the plants are
seedlings and not established plants. Hand pulling can be effective on small patches but is very labor
intensive because it must be done repeatedly.
(Sirota 2004)
Some weeds, particularly annuals and biennials, can develop resistance to herbicides. The ability to
quickly develop immunity to herbicides, especially when they are used incorrectly, makes it imperative to
use the proper chemicals at the correct time in the specified concentration according to the product label.
Excessive application, either in frequency or concentration, can result in top kill without significantly
affecting the root system. Repeated excessive applications may result in resistant phenotypes.
3.7 Noxious Weed Management — Best Management Practices
Construction: The following practices should be adopted for any construction project to reduce the costs
of noxious weed control and aid in prevention efforts. The following practices will help prevent spread of
noxious weeds:
Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be cleaned of soils remaining from previous
construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds.
Equipment and material handling should be done on established sites to reduce the area and
extent of soil compaction.
In all cases, temporary disturbance should be kept to an absolute minimum
Top soil, where present, should be segregated from deeper soils and replaced as top soil on the
final grade, a process known as live topsoil handling.
If stored longer than one growing season, topsoil stockpiles should be seeded with non-invasive
sterile hybrid grasses.
Wetland vegetation, if encountered, should be live handled like sod, temporarily watered if
necessary, and placed over excavated sub -soil relative to the position from which the wetland sod
was removed.
Cut-off collars should be placed on all wetland and stream crossings to prevent back washing
(seed vector) and to ensure that soil moisture conditions are not impacted after construction so
that native plants can re-establish from the existing seed bank.
If working in weed infested sites, equipment should be cleaned of potentially seed -bearing soils
and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain.
After construction, disturbed areas 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. If directed on the herbicide label, a surfactant or other adjuvant should
be added to the tank.
WestWater Engineering Page 6 of 10 September 2014
Grazing: In the unlikely event grazing is allowed in the project area, it should be deferred in reclaimed
areas until revegetation of desirable species has been successfully established and seeded plants have had
the opportunity to reproduce.
Monitoring: Areas where noxious weed infestations are identified and treated should be inspected over
time to ensure that control methods are working to reduce and suppress the identified infestation. The
sites should be monitored until the infestations are eliminated. These inspections can then be used to
prioritize future weed control efforts.
3.8 Commercial Applicator Recommendations
A certified commercial pesticide applicator licensed in rangeland and/or right-of-way/industrial weed
control (depending on site characteristics) is a necessary choice for herbicide control efforts. An
applicator has the full range of knowledge, skills, equipment, and experience desired when dealing with
tough noxious weeds. In addition, the purchase and use of restricted use herbicides requires a Colorado
pesticide applicator license.
4.0 REVEGETATION — RECLAMATION
Based on the soils and vegetative communities present, the following reclamation recommendations are
provided.
Soil Preparation
Special soil preparation techniques may be needed as soil compaction may be an issue on the well pads.
Compaction can reduce water infiltration and also hinder the penetration of the sprouting seed. Practices
that will reduce compaction and prepare the seedbed include: scarification, tillage, or harrowing
(Colorado Natural Areas Program et al. 1998).
Soil Amendments
WestWater does not recommend the use of soil amendments for reclamation for this project due to the
likelihood that 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 soil samples near the site.
With proper topsoil handling, these soils should revegetate well with native plant species included in the
seed mix recommended below. 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.
A potentially beneficial alternative method to enhance reclamation success, particularly where there is
poor or destroyed topsoil, is the application of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF). These
fungi, mostly of the genus Glomus, are symbiotic with about 80 percent of all vegetation. Endo-
mycorrhizal fungi 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.
Seed Mixture
The recommended seed mix (Appendix C) is adapted from the Bureau of Land Management's Colorado
River Valley Field Office seed menu recommendations (BLM 2012). This seed mix is well suited for
pinyon juniper woodland and sagebrush shrublands similar to the project area, and includes perennial
native grasses and forbs that should establish well, protect topsoil, and provide a basis for rehabilitation
for the site upon reclamation.
WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 10 September 2014
Seeding Methods
Drill seeding would be the most appropriate and economical method for seeding the majority of the
project area. Hydroseeding or hand -broadcast seeding at twice the recommended drill seed rate is
recommended for steep slopes or for smaller areas where drill seeding would be impractical or dangerous.
Mulching
Crimped straw mulch would be the most cost effective and practical method of mulching areas prone to
erosion after drill seeding this site. No mulching is recommended for areas that are hydroseeded. Potential
detrimental effects of mulching include the introduction of weed species and the establishment of non-
native cereal grains. Use of certified weed -free sterile wheat hybrid straw mulch would limit these effects.
BMPs
Excelsior wattles or straw bales at the toe of steep slopes and water discharge points are appropriate to
help control water velocity flowing off the alignment during storm runoff. Terracing slopes near or
exceeding 3:1 will reduce erosion, benefitting topsoil and seed retention and thereby improving
revegetation success.
5.0 REFERENCES
Barrow, J. R. , and B. D. McCaslin. 1995. Role of microbes in resource management in arid ecosystems.
In: Barrow, J. R. , E. D. McArthur, R. E. Sosebee, and Tausch, R. J. , comps. 1996. Proceedings:
shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment. General Technical Report, INT -GTR -
338, Ogden, Utah: U. S. Department of Agriculture, U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Resource
Station, 275 pp.
BLM. 2012. Revised Revegetation Seed Mix Menus, CRVFO Energy Team. U. S. Bureau of Land
Management, Colorado River Valley Field Office. Silt, Colorado.
Colorado Natural Areas Program, Colorado State Parks, Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
1998. Native Plant Revegetation Guide for Colorado. Available online: http://www. parks. state.
co.
us/SiteCollectionlmages/parks/Programs/CNAP/CNAPPublications/RevegetationGuide/revegetat
ion. pdf. Accessed February 4, 2014
CWMA. 2007. S. Anthony, T. D'Amato, A. Doran, S. Elzinga, J. Powell, I. Schonle, K. Uhing. Noxious
Weeds of Colorado, Ninth Edition. Colorado Weed Management Association, Centennial.
Garfield County. 2002. Garfield County Vegetation Management and Garfield County Weed Advisory
Board. Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan, Resolution #2002-94, October 21.
Garfield County. 2013. Vegetation Management Section — Noxious Weed List. Available online:
http://www. garfield-county. com/vegetation-management/noxious-weed-list. aspx. Accessed
Feburary 4, 2014
Kershaw, L. , A. MacKinnon, and J. Pojar. 1998. Plants of the Rocky Mountains. Lone Pine Publishing,
Auburn, Washington.
NRCS. 2014. Web Soil Survey, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service,
URL: http://websoilsurvey. nrcs. usda. gov
Perry, L. G. , D. M. Blumenthal, T. A. Monaco, M. W. Paschke, and E. F. Redente. 2010 Immobilizing
nitrogen to control plan invasion. Oecologia: 163:12-24.
WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 10 September 2014
Sirota, J. 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.
Weber, W. A. , and R. C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Western Slope. Fourth Edition, University
Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee and R. Parker.
2001. Weeds of the West — 9th edition. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with
Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie.
WestWater Engineering Page 9 of 10 September 2014
Legend
N Canada thistle = Canada thistle
O Common burdock Russian knapweed
• Houndstongue Tamarisk
• Russian knapweed I= 30 Meter Weeds Survey Area
• Tamarisk Pad Disturbance
Cheatgrass
County Road
BLM
Figure 1
Ursa Operating Company
BMC B & D Pads
Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weeds
Management Plan
nWestWater Engineering
Consulting Engineers & Scientists
0 200 400 690
Feet
September 2014
ap Snurce Z:lCardilleran Onmplrance Serijice sson ssocr. rsa
a s igure 1 IVNWMPirn4 9110/20
Appendix A
Garfield County Noxious Weed List
Species
Common name
Species
Code
Growth
Form
Life History
State
Listing
Acroptilon repens
Russian knapweed
ACRE3
Forb
Perennial
B
Aegilops
cylindrica
Jointed goatgrass
AECY
Grass
Annual
B
Arctium minus
Common (Lesser)
burdock
ARMI2
Forb
Biennial
C
Cardaria draba
Hoary cress, Whitetop
CADR
Forb
Perennial
B
Carduus
acanthoides
Spiny plumeless
thistle
CAAC
Forb
Biennial / Winter
Annual
B
Carduus nutans
Musk (Nodding
plumeless) thistle
CANU4
Forb
Biennial
B
Centaurea diffusa
Diffuse knapweed
CEDI3
Forb
Perennial
B
Centaurea
maculosa
Spotted knapweed
CEMA4
Forb
Perennial
B
Centaurea
solstitialis
Yellow starthistle
CESO3
Forb
Annual
A
Chrysanthemum
leucanthemum
Oxeye daisy
CHLE80
Forb
Perennial
B
Cichorium
intybus
Chicory
CIIN
Forb
Perennial
C
Cirsium arvense
Canada thistle
CIAR4
Forb
Perennial
B
Cynoglossum
officinals
Houndstongue,
Gypsyflower
CYOF
Forb
Biennial
B
Elaeagnus
angustifolia
Russian olive
ELAN
Tree
Perennial
B
Euphorbia esula
Leafy spurge
EUES
Forb
Perennial
B
Linaria
dalmatica
Dalmatian toadflax,
broad-leaved
LIDA
Forb
Perennial
B
Linaria vulgaris
Yellow toadflax
LIVU2
Forb
Perennial
B
Lythrum salicaria
Purple loosestrife
LYSA2
Forb
Perennial
A
Onopordum
acanthium
Scotch thistle
ONAC
Forb
Biennial
B
Tamarix
parviflora
Smallflower tamarisk
TAPA4
Tree
Perennial
B
Tamarix
ramosissima
Salt cedar, Tamarisk
TARA
Tree
Perennial
B
WestWater Engineering
Appendix A - 1
September 2014
Appendix B. Noxious weed locations and extent of infestations.
ISpecies
Northing
Eat';,u«*;ti
Canada thistle
4369664
754256
3x3 meters
Canada thistle
4369639
754268
4x4 meters
Canada thistle
4369612
754279
Begin point: 5x5 meters
Canada thistle
4369698
754260
End point: 85x5 meters
Common burdock
4369640
754264
5x5 meters
Common burdock
4369616
754273
2x2 meters
Houndstongue
4369629
754268
5x5 meters
Houndstongue
4369658
754278
5x5 meters
Russian knapweed
4369581
754249
2x2 meters
Russian knapweed
4369590
754271
Begin point:15x4 meters
Russian knapweed
4369589
754256
End point: 15x4 meters
Russian knapweed
4369695
754095
3x3 clump
Russian knapweed
4369633
754202
Begin point: 3m wide
Russian knapweed
4369650
754207
End point: 3m wide
Russian knapweed
4369665
754201
Clump 2x2 meters
Tamarisk
4369588
754206
Large clump 5x5 meters
Tamarisk
4369658
754255
1 tree
Tamarisk
4369654
754266
10x10 meter clump
Tamarisk
4369722
754245
Begin point:
Tamarisk
4369743
754250
End Point: 21x15 meters
WestWater Engineering Appendix B - 1 September 2014
Appendix C. Recommended Seed Menu
Table ##. Recommended seed menu for low -elevation salt -desert scrub/basin big sagebrush.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Variety
Season
Form
PLS
lbs/acre*
Plant Both of the Following (5% Each, 10% Total)
Fourwing Saltbush
Atriplex canescens
VNS
Shrub
2.5
Shadscale
Atriplex confertifolia
VNS
Shrub
2.0
and Two of the Following (25% Each, 50% Total)
Bottlebrush
Squirreltail
Elymus elymoides, Sitanion
hystrix
VNS
Cool
Bunch
3.4
Streambank
Wheatgrass
Elymus lanceolatus ssp.
psammophilus, Agropyron
riparium
Sodar
Cool
Sod-
forming
4.2
Bluebunch
Wheatgrass
Pseudoroegneria spicata
Secar
Cool
Bunch
4.7
and One of the Following (20% Total)
Indian Ricegrass
Achnatherum [Oryzopsis]
hymenoides
Paloma,
Rimrock
Cool
Bunch
3.7
Sandberg Bluegrass
Poa sandbergii, Poa secunda
VNS
Cool
Bunch
0.6
and One of the Following (10% Total)
Alkali Sacaton
Sporobolus airoides
VNS
Warm
Bunch
0.2
Salina Wildrye
Leymus salinus
VNS
Cool
Bunch
1.0
and One of the Following (10% Total)
Galleta
Pleuraphis [Hilaria] jamesii
Viva florets
Warm
Bunch/Sod-
forming
1.6
Sand Dropseed
Sporobolus cryptandrus
VNS
Warm
Bunch
0.1
OPTIONAL: Any combination from the following species may be substituted for up to 10% of the
above grasses.
Scarlet
Globemallow
Sphaeralcea coccinea
VNS
Rocky Mountain
Beeplant
Cleome serrulata
VNS
Annual Sunflower
Helianthus annuus
VNS
Sticky -Flowered
Rabbitbrush
Chrysothamnus viscid florus
VNS
*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 Appendix C - 1
September 2014