Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan · PDF fileinclude perennial pepperweed...

Integrated 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

970-285-2600

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 ofEnCana's Middle Fork Water Recycling Facility, consisting of an upper and lower tenace areas, was conducted by WestWater Engineering (WWE) at the request ofEnCana 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).

0

Figure 1:

EnCana Middle Fork Water Recycling

Facility " 'NestWater Engineering -:fil Envlronment1l Consulting Strvl<ts

Miles 0 2.5 5 10

WestWater Engineering Page 1 of 11 December 2008

)

)

Photo 1. Overhead view of the lower terrace (the triangle-shaped lot in the background).

2.0 LANDSCAPE SETTING

2.1 Soil Type & Terrain

Tenain is mechanically graded to gently sloping at both sites. The lower tenace 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 channel)' loam includes western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) , bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudorogneria spicata), big sagebrush (Artemesia 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, Toniorthents 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 tridentata spp.), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), Indian rice grass (Achnatherum hymenoides ), and yellow rabbitbrush ( Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus).


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 of21 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 officina/e) 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 te!Tace (Photo 4) on a pile of disturbed soil. Russian thistle (Sa/sola 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 I lists regulated species found and a brief description of control methods or strategies.


)

)

Musk lhistle

0 Russian thistle

• Bull lhi>lle

• Canada lhisUe

<> Field bindweed

0 Common mullem

• Houndstongue

• Common burdock .. Cheatgrass

WestWater Engineering Page 4 of 11

EnCana Middle Fork Water Recycling Facility

IVNWMP October 2008

-"'NestWater Engineering -:;;I Envlronmenlal Consulting Servkts

Feet 500

December 2008

C ommon Name*/ USDA Symbol

cheatgrassc /8 R TE

·edstem filaree8/ERCI6

houndstongue D

CYOF

common mullein\.. VETH musk thistle0

CANU4

perennial pepperweed 8

LELA2

field bindweed c

COAR4

bull thistle 8

CIVU

Table 1. Listed Noxious Weeds Observed on the EnCana Middle Fork Water Recycling Facility

Scientific Name Type** Control Methods

IBromus tectorum A Plant competitive grasses, cultural techniques, manage grazing

!£radium A/8 Mechanical by tillage where possible, selective herbicides, cicutarium competitive grasses.

Cynoglossum Re-seed with aggressive grasses, remove at flowering or ojjicinale B early seed, dig or grub at pre-bud or rosette stage or apply

herbicides. Verbascum B Cut and dig rosettes and bolting plants, re-seed with aggressive thapsus grasses. Herbicides if necessary.

Carduus 1111tans Tillage or hand grubbing in the rosette stage, mowing at B bolting or early !lower ing, seed head & rosette weevils, leaf

feeding beetles, herbicides in rosette stage.

Lepidium latifolium p Re-seed with aggressive grasses, apply herbicide in fall.

Convolvulus p Re-seed with aggressive grasses, apply herbicide in fall . arvensis

Cirsium vulgare Till or hand grub in the rosette st~e, mow at boltin1 or

B earz flowering; apply seed head rosette weevils, eaf fee ing beetles, cut and bag mature seed heads. Herbicides in rosette stage.

* State of Colorado 2005. Colorado Revised Statute 35-5-5, Bold type Garfi eld County, 8State "B" list, estate "C" List, NRCS 2008b, Sirota 2004

WestWater Engineering Page 5 of 11

Photo 2. Heavy infestation of noxious weeds on the northern portion of the lower ter race.

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 sluub 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).

Photo 3. Remove accumulated soil prior to arrival and after working in weedy areas.


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. Ce1iain 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 ofvesicular-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).


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 per Common Application Rate Name/Preferred No. PLS/ft2 % PLS/ft2

Pound Cultivar Lbs PLS/acre

A triplex canescens/52,000 fomwing saltbush 2 5 1.9

Pleuraphis jamesii/159, 000 galletaNiva 9 21 2.5

Pascopyrum smithii/110,000 western

9 21 3.6 wheatgrass/ Arriba

Elymus trachycaulus slender wheatgrass/San trachycaulus/ 9 21 2.5

159.000 Luis or Pryor

Poa secunda/925,000 Sandberg bluegrass 6 14 0.3


Table 2. Recommended Seed Mix for Drilled Rate (in Pure Live Seed-PLS) for

E C ' M" ddl F k W t R r F Tt n ana s l e or a er ecyc mg act J[y

Scientific Name/Seeds per Common

Application Rate N arne/Preferred No. PLS/ft2 % PLS/ft2

Pound Cultivar

Lbs PLS/acre

Sporobulus airoides/1, 758.000 Alkalai sacaton/Salado 8 18 0.20

TOTAL 43 PLS Ft2 100 lllbs

NRCS 2002, 2008b, CNHP 1998

Alternative seeding methods include, but are not limited to:

• harrow with just enough soi l 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

- --Noxious Weed Biology

Species Type* ,Jan - [Feb rMarch 1April ,May !June July Aug Sept ;oct Nov jDec

I ,- ~ II tlo~vering - seed r 1-Ioundstongue B rosettes ~ - -> prcbud !germination

set

1Thistle, Bull B - lst yr

1Thistle, Bu ll 18 i- 2nd yr

r: . Thtstle, Musk -,B p st yr

r: - r !Thistle, Musk - B I 2nd yr

-Whitetop*

I lgerminatiot~ F settes t> -->

--> !--> 1--> t-> rbolting !flowering iseed set

I -~ lgem1ination - - frosettes E.> f--> [ros~es 1--> 1--> .------- bolt fnow-:;i~ - r~e:d set

--> -->

--> --> '-->

!--> --> rosettes

!--> --> r--> I r--> I

(treat perennial 1

pepperweed as 1C P ,such) I

--> ~--> leme<goooo flowering t>

seed set regrowth 1--> --> --> . I I

I

lA =annual; WA = winter annu-;j; B = biennial; P = perenni; l; CP ;; creeping perennial -

S haded areas indicate best control timing.

Sirota 2004


I --> i --> ,-->

-->

'

)

7.0 REFERENCES

Barrow, J. R. , and Bobby D. McCas lin. 1995. Role of microbes in resource management in arid 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 ofNatural Resources, Denver, 258 pp.

NRCS. 2002. Plant materials technical note 59. U.S. Depa1tment 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.nrcs.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 ofMesa County. Colorado State University, Cooperative Extension Tri-River Area. , Grand Junction, Colorado URL: http://www.coopext.colostate.edu/TRA/index.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, 35-5-1-11 9, C.R.S. 2003. Department of Agriculture, Plant Industry Division, Denver, 78 pp.

Whitson, T. D. (editor), L. C. Burri ll, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and Robert Parker. 1996. Weeds of the West. Western Society ofWeed Science in cooperation with Cooperative Extension Services, University ofWyoming, Laramie, 630pp.

WestWater Engineering Page 10 ofll 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.


Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan · PDF fileinclude perennial pepperweed...

Documents

Transcript of Integrated Vegetation and Noxious Weed Management Plan · PDF fileinclude perennial pepperweed...