Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.13 Integrated vegetation and noxious weed mgnt plan.pdfIntegrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan Middle Fork Water Recycling Facility Garfield County, Colorado Cover Photo: Northeastern corner of the lower terrace at EnCana's Middle Fork Water Recycling Facility. Prepared for: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. 2717 County Road 215 Parachute, CO 81635 970 -285 -2640 Prepared by: WestWater Engineering 2516 Foresight Circle #1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 December 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description On September 30, 2008, a site inspection of EnCana's Middle Fork Water Recycling Facility, consisting of an upper and lower terrace areas, was conducted by WestWater Engineering (WWE) at the request of EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. (EnCana). The purpose of the inspection was to identify appropriate topics for inclusion in an integrated vegetation and noxious weed management plan (IVNWMP). Factors considered include soil type and texture, existing land management practices, absence or presence of listed noxious weeds, and potential natural vegetation communities. 1.2 Project Location The project area is located at the mouth of East Fork Parachute Creek on EnCana's North Parachute Ranch(Figure 1). The lower terrace is enclosed by three existing roads (Cover Photo). The upper terrace is on a steep slope above the lower terrace and floodplains of Middle Fork Parachute Creek and East Fork Parachute Creek (Photo 1). RIO BLANCO COUNTY f (—;. Proposed Site E SILT GARFIELD COUNTY Lfl Figure 1: EnCana Middle Fork Water Recycling Facility WestWater Engineering Environmental ConwIOng Services Miles 2.5 5 10 :1f . PAR jC,�,HUTE i y efts: MESA COUNTY a 'p L j' WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 11 December 2008 Photo 1. Overhead view of the Iower terrace (the triangle - shaped lot in the background). 2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING 2.1 Soil Type & Terrain Terrain is mechanically graded to gently sloping at both sites. The lower terrace has a west and southwest aspect, and soils are classified as Nihill channery loam (NRCS 2008a). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2008a), characteristic native vegetation for Nihill channery loam includes western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudorogneria spicata), big sagebrush (Arternesia tridentate), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), and yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus). The upper terrace is situated on a lot cut from the steep canyon walls characteristic of the Parachute Creek drainage. The property has a west and southwest aspect, and soils are classified as rock - outcrop, Torriorthents Complex (NRCS 2008a). No characteristic vegetation is listed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2008a) for the rock- outcrop, Torriorthents Complex. Nearby vegetation, however, includes western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata spicata), big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentate spp.), needle and thread ( Hesperostipa comata), Indian ricegrass ( Achnatherum hymenoides), and yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidflorus). WestWater Engineering Page 2 of 11 December 2008 3.0 NOXIOUS WEEDS 3.1 Introduction to Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are plants that are not native to an area. Most have come from Europe or Asia, either accidentally or as ornamentals that have escaped. Once established in a new environment they tend to spread quickly because the insects, diseases, and animals that normally control them are absent. Noxious weeds are spread by man, animals, water, and wind. Prime locations for the establishment of noxious weeds include roadsides, sites cleared for construction, areas that are overused by animals or humans, wetlands, and riparian corridors. Subsequent to soil disturbances, native vegetation communities can be susceptible to infestations of invasive or exotic weed species. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction can create optimal conditions for the establishment of invasive, non - native species. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (State of Colorado 2005) requires local governing bodies to develop noxious weed management plans. Both the State of Colorado and Garfield County maintain a list of plants that are considered to be noxious weeds. The State of Colorado noxious weed list includes three categories. List A species must be eradicated whenever detected (none were found). List B species include weeds whose spread should be halted. List C species are widespread, but the State will assist local jurisdictions which choose to manage those weeds. 3.2 Observations 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. Two of those weed species were found in, or near, the project area, and include houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) and musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Noxious weeds found at the project area that are state - listed but not on the Garfield County list include perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), field bindweed (Convolvulus arevensis), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). Weeds observed at the project were primarily found as scattered, single plants, or in small patches. The heaviest infestation of listed noxious weeds was observed on the northern portion of the lower terrace (Photo 4) on a pile of disturbed soil. Russian thistle (Salsola spp.), cheatgrass, redstem filaree, and field bindweed were noted throughout the project area and roadsides and were not mapped at every occurrence. Other troublesome weeds found at the site but not mapped include tumblemustard (Thelypodiopsis spp.), clasping pepperweed (Lepidium perfoliatum), field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense), curly dock (Rumex crispus), horehound (Marrubium vulgare) prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), and kochia (Bassia prostrata). Table 1 lists regulated species found and a brief description of control methods or strategies. WestWater Engineering Page 3 of 11 December 2008 r7r J vt • 4C4Talej 11.7' .• ry'' Upper Terrace Water Facility Site 30 4 7. Lower Terrace 'dilater Facility Site' f ` gt Legend ▪ Musk thistle ▪ Russian thistle • &ie thistle • Canada thistle • Field bindweed Compton mullein • Houndstongue • Common burdock L Cheatgrass Perinnal Pepperreed ® Weed Areas Figure 2: EnCana Middle Fork Water Recycling Facility IVNWMP October 2008 nWestWater Engineering Environmental Consulting Services 0 Feet 500 1.000 WestWater Engineering map aomce, c ,rvesrwawraiavarav mrtvvuu vsoiKu-our Tamsaaeimpmerorkvvaterrecvveeos nrxo vec. c < XVVO amt Page 4 of 11 December 2008 Table 1. Listed Noxious Weeds Observed on the EnCana Middle Fork Water Recycling Facility Common Name *f USDA Symbol Scientific Name Type ** Control Methods cheatgrassc /BRTE Bromus teclorum A Plant competitive grasses, cultural techniques, manage grazing redstem filareeB /ERCI6 Erodium cicutarium A/B Mechanical by tillage where possible, selective herbicides, competitive grasses. houndstongue° CYOF Cynoglossum affieinale B Re -seed with aggressive grasses, remove at flowering or early seed, dig or grub at pre -bud or rosette stage or apply herbicides, common mullein` VETH Vet basctnn thapstts B Cut and dig rosettes and bolting plants, re -seed with aggressive grasses. Herbicides if necessary. musk thistle' CANU4 Carduus nutans B Tillage or hand grubbing in the rosette stage, mowing at bolting or early flowering, seed head & rosette weevils, leaf feeding beetles, herbicides in rosette stage. perennial pepperweeda LELA2 Lepidium latifolium P Re -seed with aggressive grasses, apply herbicide in fall. field bindweed C COAR4 Canvolvulus arvensisvensis P Re -seed with aggressive grasses, apply herbicide in fall. bull thistle B GNU Cirsium vulgare B Till or hand grub in the rosette stage, mow at bolting or early flowering; apply seed head & rosette weevils, leaf feeding beetles, cut and bag mature seed heads. Herbicides in rosette stage. * State of Colorado 2005, Colorado Revised Statute 35.5 -5, Bold type Garfield County, aState "B" list, `State "C" List, NRCS 2005b, Sirota 2004 WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 11 Photo 2. Heavy infestation of noxious weeds on the northern portion of the lower terrace. December 2008 4.0 RECOMMENDED TREATMENT 4.1 Best Management Practices The following practices should be adopted for any construction project to reduce the costs of noxious weed control. The practices include: • Top soil, where present, should be segregated from deeper soils and replaced as top soil on the final grade. A process known as live topsoil handling places newly excavated topsoil on areas ready for re -top soiling, greatly enhancing success of reclamation. • In all cases temporary disturbance should be kept to an absolute minimum. The native shrub copse of greasewood on the westerly portion of the site should not be disturbed. • Equipment and materials handling should be done on established sites to reduce area and extent of soil compaction. • Temporary disturbances should be immediately replanted with the recommended mix in the re- vegetation section. • Prior to delivery to the site, equipment should be cleaned of soils remaining from previous construction sites which may be contaminated with noxious weeds. • If working in sites with weed -seed contaminated soil, equipment should be cleaned of potentially seed - bearing soils and vegetative debris prior to moving to uncontaminated terrain (Photo 3). \Z: Photo 3. Remove accumulated soil prior to arrival and after working in weedy areas. WcstWater Engineering Page 6 of 11 December 2008 4.2 Herbicides Herbicides should not necessarily always be the first treatment of choice when other methods can be effectively employed. In this, an industrial complex, it is not acceptable to have any vegetation component subject to wildfire. Therefore, the recommended treatment for the Middle Fork Water Recycling Facility is a soil sterilizing treatment with two or more modes of action (Boerboom 1999). It should be a mix of products that will not drift outside the boundaries if used according to label instructions, e.g., Journey® or Sahara DG®. Some products are reputed to be selective to undesirable plants while allowing desirable plants to flourish, even if their roots come into contact with the active ingredient of the herbicide (Shumway 2007). It is recommended that a commercial herbicide applicator be retained to treat the facility during soil and earth work activities. Incorporating appropriate herbicides in the upper 2 -inch soil horizon rather than solely the surface may increase the effectiveness of the product in situations where it is applied to bare ground. Appropriate selection and timing of application by a certified applicator can make a difference in total cost and long -term success of control. 4.3 Grazing Grazing does not appear to be a large problem on the project area because it lies in an industrial setting. However, grazing should be managed in a way that will enhance rather than degrade the plant community. Noxious weeds compete with desirable vegetation, and can also have a direct effect on animal health and vigor. Certain noxious weeds are highly palatable during short stages of their life cycle to certain grazing animals including goats, sheep, mule deer, elk, cattle, and horses, but usually remain so for only a short period of time. Other deleterious effects of grazing on the re- establishment of native plant communities include damages to aquatic resources, and the potential for weed seed transportation via livestock to otherwise un- infested areas. 4.4 Mechanical Houndstongue is often found beneath the canopy of shrubs, and is therefore difficult to treat with broadcast herbicide without harming desirable overstory vegetation. Recommended treatment of infestations in the understory is limited to mechanical methods where possible and spot treatment of contact herbicide where physical access is limited. 4.5 Alternative Methods The application of vesicular - arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, typically referred to as AMF, to increase success of native species in re- vegetation is considered particularly useful when soil microorganisms are absent. It is likely most of the previously disturbed portions of the site are absent AMF. These soil micro - organisms are useful where cheatgrass infestations and poor to non - existent top soils may be found. For this project, AMF should be used on the lower, west to south facing slopes where compaction may also be a problem. These fungi, mostly of the genus Glomus, are symbiotic with about 80% of all vegetation. In symbiosis, the fungi increase water and nutrient transfer capacity of the host root system by as much as several orders of magnitude (Barrow and McCaslin 1995). WestWater Engineering Page 7 of 11 December 2008 Some AMF products are better adapted to coating seeds, when reseeding and treating roots of live seedling trees and shrubs at time of planting, come in powder form, and are available from many different sources. Other AMF products come in granular form to be spread with or like seed from a broadcast spreader. The best AMF products should contain more than one species. Most Colorado Department of Transportation re- vegetation/re- seeding projects now require use of AMF and BioSol®, a certified by- product of the penicillin manufacturing process composed primarily of mycelium. In addition to AMF and BioSol, compacted soils respond well to fossilized humic substances and by- products called humates. These humates, including humic and fulvic acids and humin are not soluble in acidic conditions, but are soluble in alkaline soil conditions and work particularly well breaking up tight or compacted soils. Commercial humate products are available. 5.0 REVEGETATION A seed mix was developed for EnCana previously and is repeated herein for convenience and consistency for EnCana projects on or near North Parachute Ranch (Table 2). Shrubs found onsite include some that have likely resulted from reclamation or invasion from nearby copses. Four -wing saltbush has been added because noxious weed control can be limited to spot treatment. With proper rest from grazing, greasewood is anticipated to be wind -sown from nearby undisturbed plants. Seeding rates listed (in Pure Live Seed- PLS, rather than bulk weight) should be doubled for broadcast application. Preferred seeding method is multiple seed bin rangeland drill. In areas with slope greater than 3 %, 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 hydro- seeding or mulching, imprinting should be done prior to seeding unless the mulch is to be crimped into the soil surface. If broadcast seeding and harrowing, imprinting should be done as part of the harrowing. Furrowing can be done by several methods, the most simple of which is to drill seed perpendicular to the direction of slope in a prepared bed. Other simple imprinting methods include deep hand raking and harrowing, always perpendicular to the direction of slope. Table 2. Recommended Seed Mix for Drilled Rate (in Pure Live Seed -PLS) for EnCana's Middle Fork Water Recycling Facility Scientific Name /Seeds er p Pound Common Name /Preferred Cultivar No. PLS /ft2 % PLS /fl- Application Rate Lbs PLS /acre Atriplex canescens /52,000 fourwing saltbush 2 5 1.9 Pleuraphis jamesii1159,000 galleta /Viva 9 21 2.5 Pascopyrum srnithii /110,000 western wheatgrass/Aniba 9 21 3.6 Elymus trachycaulus trachycaulus/ 159,000 slender wheatgrass /San Luis or Pryor 9 21 2.5 Poa secunda /925,000 Sandberg bluegrass 6 14 0.3 WestWater Engineering Page 8 of 11 December 2008 Table 2. Recommended Seed Mix for Drilled Rate (in Pure Live Seed -PLS) for EnCana's Middle Fork Water Recvcline Facilit Scientific Name /Seeds per Pound Common Name/Preferred Cultivar No. PLS /ft 2 0 /o 2 PLSIft Application Rate Lbs PLS /acre Sporobulus airoides /1,758.000 Alkalai sacaton/Salado 8 18 0.20 TOTAL 43 PLS Ft2 100 11 Ihs NRCS 2002, 2008b, CNHP 1998 Alternative seeding methods include, but are not limited to: • harrow with just enough soil moisture to create a rough surface, broadcast seed and re- harrow, preferably at a 90 degree angle to the first harrow, • hydro - seeding (most economical in terms of seed cost), 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. 6.0 LIFE CYCLE AND MANAGEMENT CALENDAR This calendar is meant to show the best timing and control methods for Garfield County listed weeds on the site Species Type* 'Jan Feb ;March Houndstongue ,B ;rosettes - -> Thistle, Bull 'B - 1styr Thistle, Bull !B - 2nd yr Thistle, Musk - !B Istyr Thistle, Musk - iB rosettes - -> 2nd yr Whitetop* (treat perennial i pepperweed as 'C P such) Iprebud ;germination - -> emergence Noxious Weed Biology April May flowering - seed set germination flowering !June July germination ,rosettes - -> bolting flowering rosettes 'Aug Sept ,Oct - -> - -> ' - -> seed set - -> - -> rosettes bolt flowering seed set seed set A = annual; WA = winter annual; B = biennial; P = perennial; CP = creeping perennial Shaded areas indicate best control timing. Sirota 2004 WestWater Engineering regrowth Page 9 of 11 December 2008 Nov Dec 7.0 REFERENCES Barrow, J. R., and Bobby D. McCaslin. 1995. Role of microbes in resource management in and ecosystems. In: Barrow, J. R., E. D. McArthur, R. E. Sosebee, and Robin J. Tausch, 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. Boerboom, Chris. 1999. Herbicide mode of action reference. Weed Science, University of Wisconsin, 5 pp. CNHP. 1998. Native Plant Re- vegetation Guide for Colorado. Caring for the Land Series, Vol. III, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, State of Colorado, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, 258 pp. NRCS. 2002. Plant materials technical note 59. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Colorado State Office, Lakewood, 54 pp. NRCS. 2008a. Web Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture. URL: http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov. NRCS. 2008b. The PLANTS Database (http: / /plants.usda.gov, 7 September 2006). National Plant Data Center, US Department of Agriculture, Baton Rouge, LA 70874 -4490 USA. Sirota, Judith. 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 /TRAlindex.html# http : / /www.coopext.colostate.edu /TR A/Weeds/weedmgmt.html Shumway, Mel. 2007. Industrial and right -of -way weed control. Colorado Pesticide Applicator Training Presentation. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, Tri -River Area, Grand Junction, February 14. 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. Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and Robert Parker. 1996. Weeds of the West. Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 630pp. WestWater Engineering Page 10 of 11 December 2008 Common chemical and trade names may be used in this report. The use of trade names is for clarity by the reader. Inclusion of a trade name does not imply endorsement of that particular brand of herbicide and exclusion does not imply non - approval. Certified commercial applicators will decide which herbicide to use and at what concentration according to label directions. Landowners using unrestricted products must obey all label warnings, cautions, and application concentrations. The author of this report is not responsible for inappropriate herbicide use by readers. WestWater Engineering Page 11 of I1 December 2008