HomeMy WebLinkAboutPOLESTAR VILLAGE - FDP240010 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - Supporting Documentation (5)
Pole Star Community:
Adaptive Management and Mitigation Plan
Prepared For: JR Engineering, Pole Star Community
Date: 06/21/2024
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 2 | Page
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: Adaptive Management Strategies and Monitoring ............................................................................................... 3
Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Adaptive Management Background ................................................................................................................................... 3
Wetland Mitigation and Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) Monitoring ......................................................................... 3
Overview ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Monitoring Goals ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Types of Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Monitoring Timeline and Responsibilities ...................................................................................................................... 5
Monitoring Methods ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 2: Weed Management Strategies ............................................................................................................................ 8
Weed Management ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
Weed Management Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 9
Weed Treatments ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Herbicide Note: ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
SECTION 3: Site Protection and Maintenance ....................................................................................................................... 20
Site Protection ................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Wildlife Control ................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Site Maintenance .............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Concluding Remarks .............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix A –Baseline Photo Points ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix B – Monitoring Forms/Data Sheets ...................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix C - Weed Treatment Calendar .............................................................................................................................. 25
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 3 | Page
SECTION 1: Adaptive Management Strategies and Monitoring
Purpose
The purpose of the Pole Star Community Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (Plan) is to outline specific
approaches, strategies, and protocols related to the post-restoration care of Pole Star Community. The data derived
from monitoring is intended to inform weed management, irrigation, site protection, and on-going adaptive
management (e.g., reseeding, grade/erosion control, site protection, etc.) necessary to accomplish the project’s
restoration goals.
Adaptive Management Background
Adaptive management is an iterative process, incorporating monitoring results to inform ongoing maintenance and re-
treatments that may be required to achieve long-term success of a restoration project. Monitoring provides an essential
step in the adaptive management process, providing feedback for land managers and project designers, as well as
allowing for the comparison of long-term results with baseline conditions. The identification of maintenance treatments
(e.g., weed management, irrigation, site protection, spot seeding, etc.) are the primary product of adaptive management
plans. Like initial revegetation results, maintenance treatments will be assessed over the long term via monitoring, the
results of which will inform future maintenance efforts via an adaptive management process. In this regard, adaptive
management is a cyclical process, especially in an urban or suburban setting where ongoing threats to natural areas exist
in perpetuity.
Wetland Mitigation and Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) Monitoring
Overview
Monitoring is the process of measuring or assessing specific physical, chemical, and/or biological parameters of a project
over time (Thayer, 2003) (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2007). Using subjective (i.e., qualitative) or objective
(i.e., quantitative) methods, monitoring can be used to help identify and address project failures due to potential
stressors (drought, insect damage, flooding, etc.) and inform maintenance activities. Qualitative methods, such as visual
observations (i.e., repeat photographic points or completion of subjective monitoring forms), can effectively document
site changes and quickly inform maintenance activities necessary to correct problems. However, purely qualitative
approaches such as repeat photography or other casual observations can often over- or under-represent important data
such as vegetation cover. Such errors can occur because of observer bias (e.g., a human’s natural tendency to score
green vegetation higher than bare soil) as well as limitations of methodology (e.g., the oblique angle represented in
repeat photographs taken across a landscape reveal significantly higher vegetation cover than that same cover
measured from an aerial point of view).
Conversely, quantitative monitoring is more data-driven and aims to measure project outcomes through science-based
methods aimed at reducing observer bias. Quantitative monitoring results may also be used to guide the criteria and
methodology for future restoration projects and maintenance activities of a site, more accurately address permitting
and funding entity requirements, support requests for contractors to perform on various warranty items (e.g., a
minimum of 50% vegetation cover), and allow for sound long-term tracking of the changes in certain parameters of a
site (e.g., changes in plant community structure and composition over time).
At Pole Star Community, monitoring can answer important questions for post-restoration and enhancement
management, and provide meaningful direction for adaptative management. Some of these questions, from Living
Streambanks: A Guide to Bioengineering Treatments for Colorado Streams (Giordanengo, 2016) include:
• Were the appropriate treatments designed and implemented correctly to achieve restoration goals?
• Were project outcomes achieved according to project goals?
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 4 | Page
• Are management activities (i.e., mining, hiking, rural/residential landscaping, grazing, other land use) negatively
affecting project outcomes?
• Have site conditions changed in a way that requires an adjustment to existing structures, replacement of
structures or vegetation, or installation of new treatments?
• Is the vegetation community on the expected trajectory of recovery, or are important design components
missing?
• Have invasive or noxious species negatively impacted the site?
The nature, frequency, and intensity of monitoring will vary depending on the questions being answered by the
monitoring program, available resources (e.g., volunteers, staff, equipment, finances), and the nature of the elements
(e.g., vegetation cover) being monitored. With an assumption that monitoring resources are limited, yet to ensure
reliable data gathering, we have drafted a monitoring strategy and resources to carry out monitoring activities on this
project site.
Monitoring Goals
An essential first step to monitoring is the development of specific restoration objectives (e.g., more specific than the
original project goals) for Pole Star Community, against which monitoring results can be measured. The following goals
are provided as a recommendation. These goals should be verified by the client and additional goals may be required by
various permit agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service (i.e., management for T&E
species), and others.
Wetland Mitigation and NHBZ Revegetation Goals:
Goal 1: Mitigate for wetland loss due to construction activities to City of Fort Collins standards.
Goal 2: Enhance Natural Habitat Buffer Zone per City of Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.4.1.
Given these goals, specific elements to measure over time include:
• 70% total vegetation cover in wetland mitigation and NHBZ areas,
• Less than 10% weed cover, with no List A or List B populations,
• ≥80% woody plant survival,
• No bare spots greater than 12 ft.
− The intent of this metric is to ensure there are no significant unvegetated patches
Types of Monitoring
Monitoring, by definition, should be conducted over time, and should utilize consistent approaches to accurately
compare data over the length of the monitoring effort. Lewis et al. (2009) recommend four fundamental monitoring
types to answer principal questions:
• Pre-project assessment (i.e., documentation of the current site conditions and how they inform project selection
and design).
• What are the existing site conditions and the reasons for project implementation? This is like baseline
monitoring, though does not attempt to document pre-disturbance conditions.
• Implementation monitoring is done to establish the accuracy of construction.
• Was the project installed according to design specifications, permits and landowner agreements?
• Effectiveness monitoring is used to assess post-project site conditions and to document changes resulting from
the implemented project.
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 5 | Page
• Did attributes and components at the project site change in magnitude expected over the appropriate
time frame? This is accomplished through comparison with pre-project and post construction
conditions.
• Validation monitoring is used to determine the cause-and-effect relationship between the project and biotic or
physical response.
• Did macroinvertebrates, wildlife, or water quality respond to the changes in physical and biological
attributes or components brought about by the project?
Pre-project monitoring at Pole Star Community was conducted by AloTerra in the form of an Ecological Characterization
Study. Implementation monitoring (i.e., quantifying the location and type of restoration work completed, as compared
to the intended design) will be completed during construction. Effectiveness and validation monitoring are proposed in
this plan and are recommended for a minimum of three growing seasons post-construction. Both qualitative and
quantitative methods will be employed to ensure management objectives are being met. If it is determined that
objectives are not being met, management will adapt to ensure the desired results.
Given budgetary constraints, even the most basic monitoring methods can inform adaptive management decisions
important to the long-term maintenance of a project. However, as the results of qualitative monitoring can vary
significantly from one observer to another, every effort should be made to integrate at least categorical observations
(i.e., high, moderate, low, none; or scoring 0-5 for various element conditions). An important key, regardless of the
complexity or cost of the monitoring method(s) used, is to employ repeatable/consistent methods over time. As
personal and management circumstances change over time, data will be collected and managed in a way that can be
easily understood and interpreted by a variety of future land managers and practitioners.
We recommend a combination of monitoring methods to properly assess whether management objectives are being
met at Pole Star Community. The methods proposed include:
• Line-intercept procedure (Herrick, 2005) to measure plant community composition, especially herbaceous
vegetation. This method is highly accurate and repeatable over time,
• Noxious weed assessment (categorical observation-based protocol),
• Plant survivorship counts (objective assessment),
• General site condition assessment (categorical observation-based protocol), and
• General assessment for wetland condition, using cover plants by wetland indicator status.
Monitoring Timeline and Responsibilities
Vegetation monitoring will be conducted once per year for three years following construction. We will conduct
vegetation monitoring at the peak of the growing season, approximately late July to early August. Weed assessments
should occur in mid spring, to inform the need and extent of subsequent treatments required to address weeds of
concern.
Monitoring Methods
This section provides a summary of monitoring methods for native and non-native vegetation at the Pole Star
Community mitigation site. Appendix B includes a static version of the monitoring forms for these monitoring methods.
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation Cover: The line-point-intercept method will be used to quantify herbaceous vegetation cover in
revegetated areas. 10 transects are recommended (6 in uplands and 4 in wetland areas – adjacent to the
groundwater elevation). See Figure 1 for proposed transect locations.
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 6 | Page
Survivorship: A simple quantitative measure to document shrub and tree survivorship is a shrub survivorship
inventory (Appendix B).
Weed Populations: Refer to the monitoring form in Appendix B.
General Wetland Condition Assessment
A product of the vegetation cover data, to determine if the wetland mitigation area is developing hydrophytic
vegetation typical of expected facultative wetlands in the region.
Figure 1. Vegetation Monitoring Map with photo point and transect locations
SECTION 2: Weed Management Strategies
Weed Management
With regards to their impacts on native plant communities and/or social values, non-native plants (i.e., weeds) can be
benign, invasive, or noxious. Weeds have long been recognized as ecologically and economically detrimental for multiple
reasons, a complete account of which is beyond the scope of this document. Several non-native aggressive species have
been identified in Pole Star Community, which are capable of out-competing native plants for water, light, and nutrients,
or secrete phytotoxins which actively inhibit the growth of native vegetation while providing minimal benefits about soil
stabilization, forage, and other wildlife and pollinator benefits in comparison to native vegetation. These invasive species
have an advantage over native species in part because they lack the full spectrum of biological controls (i.e., insect
predators, plant pathogens, etc.) that serve to keep their populations in check in their country of origin. As such, they
are more likely to continue to spread unabated throughout a watershed by displacing native plants and forming dense
monocultures in disturbed conditions such as those present immediately following a construction project.
Several non-native species at Pole Star Community were identified during initial vegetation assessments by AloTerra.
Though a formal weed inventory was not conducted, the initial assessment provided a comprehensive list of weeds and
their state rank (Table 1). A formal weed inventory should be conducted in the summer of 2022 to map the density and
distribution of weeds more accurately in Pole Star Community.
The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (C.R.S. 35-5.5-101-119) creates a legally binding obligation for the removal/control of
noxious species. Through the Colorado Department of Agriculture, a list of A, B, and C species is managed and
periodically updated to prioritize the control of weeds. To assist with weed management, a great variety of weed
management resources are provided by these entities, including how to create a weed management plan, best
management practices for weed management, and more:
Colorado Department of Agriculture website: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/noxious-
weed-publications,
Colorado State University Extension, Weed Resources:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/sam/weeds.html
Colorado Weed Management Association
https://cwma.org/
State of Colorado Noxious Weed Act Priority List Definitions:
List A - Species that have not become established in the state and may have not even been reported in the state yet. The
most effective way to treat these species is to eradicate them wherever they are found, and to prevent their
introduction into the state if they are not yet present.
List B - Species for which the Commissioner, in consultation with the state noxious weed advisory committee, local
governments, and other interested parties, develops and implements state noxious weed management plans designed
to stop the continued spread of these species.
List C - These are species for which the Noxious Weeds Commissioner, in consultation with the state noxious weed
advisory committee, local governments, and other interested parties, will develop and implement state noxious weed
management plans designed to support the efforts of local governing bodies to facilitate more effective integrated weed
management on private and public lands. The goal of such plans will not be to stop the continued spread of these
species but to provide additional education, research, and biological control resources to jurisdictions that choose to
require management of List C species. The goal of such plans will not be to stop the continued spread of these species
but to provide additional education, research, and biological control resources to jurisdictions that choose to require
management of list C species.
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 9 | Page
Watch List (WL) - Species that have been determined to pose a potential threat to the agricultural productivity and
environmental values of the lands of the state. The Watch List is intended to serve advisory and educational purposes
only. Its purpose is to encourage the identification and reporting of these species to the Commissioner to facilitate the
collection of information to assist the Commissioner in determining which species should be designated as noxious
weeds. When managing for weeds at Pole Star Community, given the goals of increased biological and structural
diversity of a site, it is important to note that the list of species in Table 1 are not the only species to be managed.
Species such as tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum, unlisted in Colorado) are not a significant concern, while
species such as common kochia (Kochia scoparia, unlisted in Colorado) can be highly disruptive to a restoration project
and to long-term site management. As such, our weed management recommendations below target listed and unlisted
species alike, whether their management is required by the State of Colorado.
The most cost-effective time to manage invasive vegetation is early in a project’s lifetime before invasive plants have a
chance to spread through abundant seeds or vegetative propagules. Since the initial monitoring stage has taken place,
and species of concern have been identified and documented prior to project implementation, treatment of these
species will occur prior, during, and after construction as needed. Consistent monitoring will take place throughout and
after project implementation, which will identify whether follow-up treatments are required to address most invasive
species problems.
Table 1. Weed list for Pole Star Community (NL = not listed)
Common Name Scientific Name Noxious Weed List
Crested Wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum NL
Smooth Brome Bromus inermis NL
Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum C
Musk Thistle Carduus nutans B
Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense B
Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis C
Russian Olive Eleaganus angustifolia B
Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula B
Kochia Kochia scoparia NL
Prickly Lettuce Lactuca serriola NL
Yellow Sweetclover Melilotus officinalis NL
Reed Canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea NL
Curly Dock Rumex crispus/obtusifolius NL
Tall Fescue Schedonorus arundinaceus NL
Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila NL
Mullein Verbascum thapsus C
Weed Management Recommendations
Treating invasive species is a necessary step at Pole Star Community to restore it to a more productive and natural
condition. This will also increase biodiversity and will provide greater protection of slopes and other topographic
features. Site management should integrate a variety of restoration and management activities to control the invasion
of non-native vegetation, which include:
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 10 | Page
• Selecting appropriate and diverse early- to mid-seral seed mixes with the potential to fully occupy a given area’s
botanical niches,
• Seeding and planting in optimal seasons, and using appropriate seeding rates and seeding methods to increase
the likelihood of high vegetation cover in the early years following restoration,
• Applying appropriate levels of soil amendments, as determined by proper soil testing,
• Minimizing or eliminating the use of nitrogen, as invasive species are preferentially stimulated over native
species using nitrogen,
• Paying close attention to the invasive species seeds that are often present in a seed mix,
• Eliminate the presence of undesirable non-native species brought to the restoration site by heavy equipment,
and via other vectors (cattle and other livestock, clothing and boots of residents and volunteers, and others)
• Pre-treating the project site to remove invasive and noxious species,
• Eliminating small patches of invading weeds before they become established and spread,
• Developing an iterative weed management plan, informed by regularly scheduled monitoring, and
• Keeping records of all weed management activities to aid in monitoring and future planning.
Weed Treatments
The property owner would like to maintain organic methods of weed control. While mechanical methods, outlined
below, will be the primary means of weed control, chemical method of control have also been included for full
comprehensive information. Please be advised that after restoration activities have occurred, the list of weed species
found on the property may change. A complete weed survey should be conducted to better understand the extents of
each weed population, and hence develop a comprehensive weed management plan based on priority species and their
current and projected distribution. In addition to the treatments below, biological controls may also be available, and
should be researched as desired. See Appendix C for Weed Treatment Calendar.
Crested Wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.)
• Priority: Low
• State Noxious Weed Designation: Not Listed; Control is required and necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: Crested Wheatgrass displays earlier growth characteristics compared to many native
species and therefore has the potential to outcompete more desirable vegetation. This species may also
negatively affect soil quality overtime.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected
Outcome
Expected Time
to Success
Mechanical Mowing/String Trimmer
Spring, during the
growth period.
Repeat in Fall as
needed.
Bi-
annually
Energy depletion.
Seed Reduction.
Will depend on
extent of
infestation.
Biological Grazing
Spring, during the
growth period.
Repeat in Fall as
needed.
Bi-
annually
Energy depletion.
Seed Reduction.
Will depend on
extent of
infestation.
Cultural
Maintenance of dense
native vegetation and
avoidance of disturbance
Reseed immediately
following any ground
disturbance
Spring-
Fall
Prevention of
seed
establishment
N/A
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 11 | Page
Chemical 8-16 oz/acre glyphosate Spring, between 8cm-
15cm tall Annually Death of
individual plants
3- 5 years to
deplete seed
bank.
Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis)
• Priority: Moderate
• State Noxious Weed Designation: Not Listed; Control is necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: This is an incredibly persistent and competitive species. Once it forms a dense sod it
excludes native species and reduces diversity. It is known to negatively affect native arthropod species in North
American prairies.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected
Outcome
Expected Time
to Success
Mechanical Mowing as low as
possible
Spring; mid to late
May when grass is in
the “boot” stage of
growth
Repeat every
10 -21 days
Stressing of the
plant to cause
death
Several years
for seed bank
depletion
Cultural
Maintenance of dense
native vegetation and
avoidance of
disturbance
Reseed immediately
following any ground
disturbance
Spring- Fall
Prevention of
seed
establishment
N/A
Chemical 8-16 oz/acre glyphosate Spring, during new
growth Annually Death of
individual plants
2-3 years to
deplete seed
bank.
Downy Brome/Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)
• Priority: High
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List C; If left unchecked, will create monoculture.
• Reason for Concern: This is an incredibly thirsty species that diverts enough water away from native plants that
shrubs growing in infested field are very stunted. Once Cheatgrass reaches maturity and dries, it becomes a
major fire hazard. Large infestations can increase fire frequency in rangelands. Cheatgrass is hard to control
once it becomes established. As this invasive weed begins to dominate an area, it alters native plant
communities and displaces native plants thus impacting wildlife. This species severely degrades pollinator
habitat while simultaneously drastically increasing hazard. Additionally, invasion by this species can result in
changes in soil properties.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected
Outcome
Expected Time to
Success
Mechanical
Digging plant and as
much of roots as
possible
Spring; narrow
window of 1 week
after flowering.
Annually Death of
individual plant
Immediate for
individual plant;
Several years for
patch seed bank
depletion.
Mechanical Mowing Year round Every 2 – 3
weeks
Suppression of
seed production
2-3 years for patch
seed bank depletion
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 12 | Page
Cultural
Maintenance of dense
native vegetation and
avoidance of disturbance
Reseed immediately
following any
ground disturbance
Spring- Fall
Prevention of
seed
establishment N/A
Chemical 5 oz/gal glyphosate
Early Spring before
native perennials
emerge
Annually
Death of
individual plants
2-3 years to deplete
seed bank.
Chemical
2-4 oz/acres or 0.4 oz/gal
rimsulfuron (Matrix SG) +
0.25% non-ionic
surfactant (1 qt/100 gal
spray solution)
Late Fall to newly
emerged seedlings
or early spring
before seed
production
Annually Death of
individual plants
2-3 years to deplete
the seed bank.
Chemical 7oz/acre indaziflam
(Esplanade 200 SC)
June/July or Winter
(December) Annually
Prevention of
seed
germination
2-3 years to deplete
seed bank. Control
may increase in the
2nd year after
treatment.
Musk Thistle (Carduus nutans)
• Priority: High
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List B; Control is required and necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: Thistles are highly competitive and persistent plants. Given suitable conditions, these
weeds rapidly invade rangeland, pastures, abandoned fields, roadsides, and disturbed sites. A high density of
thistles reduces availability of quality forage and the diversity of flora and fauna species. Additionally, most
thistles have taproots that do not stabilize the soil as well as the fibrous roots of native species; therefore, high
densities of thistles can contribute to soil erosion and stream sedimentation. Musk thistle also has allelopathic
qualities meaning it can inhibit the growth of surrounding vegetation other than other thistle species. This
activity especially effects nitrogen fixing species giving this species the potential to cause long- term declines in
soil nitrogen input.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected
Outcome
Expected Time
to Success
Mechanical Severing plant 2” below soil
level with hand tools Year round When
needed
Death of
individual plant
Immediate for
individual plant;
many years for
patch
Mechanical Flower/Seed head removal Year round When
needed
Prevention of
seed spread N/A
Chemical
5 oz/acre or 3.8oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant (1
qt/100 gal spray solution)
Spring; on rosettes
and until flowering;
incorporate mowing
if possible
Annually
Death of plants
and suppression
of seed growth
Visible damage
in 1 - 3 weeks
Chemical
7 oz/acre or 6.4oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant (1
qt/100 gal spray solution)
Fall, at time of seed
set as plants enter
dormancy;
incorporate mowing
if possible
Annually
Death of plants
and suppression
of seed growth
Visible damage
in 1 - 3 weeks
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 13 | Page
Chemical
1 oz/acre or 0.01oz/gal
chlorsulfuron (Telar XP) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant (1
qt/100 gal of spray solution);
can be mixed into
aminopyralid solution
Spring; on rosettes
and until budding;
incorporate mowing
if possible
Annually
Death of plants
and suppression
of seed growth
Visible damage
in 1 - 3 weeks
Canada Thistle (Breea arvense/Cirsium arvense)
• Priority: High
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List B; Control is required and necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: Canada thistle is a highly competitive, persistent plant that grows in dense, impenetrable
colonies. This species displaces desired forbs and grasses for both domestic animals and wildlife. It is an
aggressive competitor for light, moisture, and nutrients. Its spiny leaves make Canada thistle inedible to most
livestock and wild animals. Produces allelopathic chemicals that actively inhibit the growth of other plants.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected Outcome
Expected
Time to
Success
Mechanical Mowing Spring; once plants
bolt
Every 3
weeks
Reduced seed
production and
dispersal capability;
May stimulate new
growth
N/A. Should
be combined
with other
methods
Manual Seed Head Removal Spring and summer
as buds emerge As needed
Reduced seed
production and
dispersal capability;
May stimulate new
growth
N/A. Should
be combined
with other
methods
Chemical
5 oz/acre or 3.8oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant (1
qt/100-gal spray solution)
Fall, at time of seed
set as plants enter
dormancy;
incorporate
Annually
Death of plants and
suppression of seed
growth
Visible
damage in 1 -
3 weeks;
control in ~4
Chemical
1.5 oz/acre or 0.02 oz/gal
chlorsulfuron (Telar XP) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant (1
qt/100 gal of spray solution);
can be mixed into
aminopyralid solution
Fall, at time of seed
set as plants enter
dormancy;
incorporate mowing
if possible
Annually
Death of plants and
suppression of seed
growth; allow flush
of native milkweed
Visible
damage in 1
- 3 weeks;
control in ~4
years
Chemical
7 oz/acre or 6.4oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant (1
qt/100-gal spray solution)
Spring; on rosettes
and until flowering;
incorporate mowing
if possible
Annually
Death of plants and
suppression of seed
growth
Visible
damage in 1 -
3 weeks;
control in ~4
Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)
• Priority: High
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List C; If left unchecked, will create monoculture.
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 14 | Page
• Reason for Concern: Field bindweed is an extremely difficult noxious weed to control because, in part, of its
taproot that may go 20 feet deep into the soil, and which repeatedly gives rise to numerous long rhizomes. It
poses threats to restoration efforts and riparian corridors by choking out grasses and forbs. It can decrease
habitat biodiversity. It is one of the most serious weeds of agricultural fields in temperate regions of the world. It
can also be mildly toxic to grazing animals.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected Outcome Expected Time to
Success
Biological Aceria malherbae,
gall forming mite
Summer when plants
are growing, and
weather is conducive
to insect survival
Repeated
releases over
several years
Establish long term
suppression of
dense populations
Several years,
depending on
the number of
insects released
Cultural
Maintenance of
dense native
vegetation and
avoidance of
disturbance
Reseed immediately
following any ground
disturbance
Spring- Fall Prevention of seed
establishment N/A
Chemical 4.5 oz/gal 2,4-D Before seed set; in
the Summer As needed Death of individual
plants
Several years to
deplete root
energy stores.
Chemical
3-4 pints/acre or
3.84-6.4 oz/gal
triclopyr (Garlon 3A)
Late spring to mid-
summer Annually
Death of individual
plants – Will require
multiple treatments
1-3 weeks to see
damage several
years to kill
entire
Chemical
5 oz/gal glyphosate
(Roundup) + 0.32
oz/gal non-ionic
surfactant
At full bloom; Fall Annually/
Biannually
Death of individual
plants
Several years to
deplete root
stores.
Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)
• Priority: High
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List C; Control is necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: Russian Olive has the potential to choke out native vegetation and if left unchecked, can
become the dominant species in an area. Once established, Russian olive can become detrimental to the natural
hydrology of riparian areas.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected Outcome Expected Time to
Success
Mechanical Hand pulling small
individuals
Year
round
When
possible
Elimination of
small patches Several Years
Chemical
50% - 100%
Glyphosate (Roundup) for
cut- surface treatments
Summer,
Fall Annually Death of plants
and resprouts
Visible damage in 1 - 3
weeks; control in 1-3
years
Chemical
50% - 100% triclopyr amine
(Garlon 3A) for cut-stump
treatment
Summer,
Fall Annually
Death of small
plants and
resprouts
Visible damage in 1 - 3
weeks
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 15 | Page
Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula)
• Priority: High
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List B; Control is required and necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: This species invades grasslands, pastures, shrublands, croplands and riparian areas, and is an
effective competitor that readily displaces desirable species, establishing monocultures and further degrading
forage quality in disturbed habitats. It has an extensive roots system that can extend as deep as 30 ft. It can
reproduce both by roots and root fragments as well as seed. Herbicide is needed in order to effectively control
the species.
Treatment Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected
Outcome
Expected Time
to Success
Biological Aphthona beetle
Release in
June through
July
Once Death of plants
3-10 years for
widespread
control
Mechanical/Manual Not Reccomended N/A N/A N/A N/A
Chemical
12-24 oz. Quinstar/acre +
4 oz. Overdrive/acre + 1%
v/v methylated seed oil
At flowering
in the spring
and/or fall
Annually
Death of plants
and suppression
of seed growth
Visible damage
in 1 - 3 weeks
Common Kochia (Kochia scoparia)
• Priority: High
• State Noxious Weed Designation: Not Listed; Control is necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: Kochia aids in spreading fire; burns easily because stems are spaced in an arrangement that
allows for maximum air circulation; dead plants contribute to fuel load by retaining their original shape for some
time before decomposing. Because it is extremely efficient at using water, it thrives in warm, low rainfall
environments. Although palatable to stock, kochia may be toxic in large quantities. Litter from kochia may
chemically inhibit the growth Kochia also becomes a tumble weed.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected Outcome
Expected
Time to
Success
Mechanical Mowing Spring through
fall
Every 10 –
21 days
Reduction of seed
production and
stressing of plant prior
to chemical treatment
2 – 3 years for
control.
Mechanical Disking at a depth of 2-4
inches
Early spring and
summer
When
needed
Death of individual
plant
Immediate for
individual
plant
Chemical
6-22 oz/acre Floroxypyr
(Vista) + 0.25% non-ionic
surfactant (1 qt/100 gal of
spray solution)
Post emergence
from seedling to
bloom
Annually
Death of plants;
especially resistant
biotypes
Visible
Damage in 1-3
weeks
Prickly Lettuce (Lactuca serriola)
• Priority: Moderate
• State Noxious Weed Designation: Not Listed; Control is necessary to decrease spread.
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 16 | Page
• Reason for Concern: Can out compete native vegetation for water. May be toxic to grazing cattle.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected Outcome Expected Time to
Success
Mechanical Severing plant 2” below soil
level with hand tools Year round When
needed
Death of individual
plant
Immediate for
individual plant;
many years for
patch
Mechanical Mowing Spring
through fall
Every 10 –
21 days
Reduction of seed
production and
stressing of plant prior
to chemical treatment
2 – 3 years for
control.
Mechanical Flower/Seed head removal Year round When
needed
Prevention of seed
spread N/A
Chemical
5 oz/acre or 1.2oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant
(1 qt/100 gal spray solution)
Spring
when in the
rosette
stage
Annually
Death of plants and
suppression of seed
growth
Visible damage in
1 - 3 weeks
Yellow Sweet Clover (Melilotus officianalis)
• Priority: Moderate
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List NL; Control is necessary to reduce spread.
• Reason for Concern: This species can outcompete native vegetation and change the nitrogen levels in soil.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected Outcome Expected Time
to Success
Mechanical
Severing plant 2”
below soil level with
hand tools
Spring, Summer
and Fall
When
needed
Death of plants and
prevention of seed
spread
Many years, to
exhaust seed
bank
Mechanical Mowing
Spring, Summer,
and Fall before
seed set
Every 10 –
21 days
Suppression of seed
production N/A
Chemical 1.5% solution
Glyphosate (Roundup)
Spring and
Summer Annually Death of plants Visible damage
in 1 - 3 weeks
Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea)
• Priority: Moderate
• State Noxious Weed Designation: Not Listed; Control is necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: Typically found in wetlands and irrigation ditches. If left untreated, can cause dense
monocultures and outcompete native vegetation
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected
Outcome
Expected Time
to Success
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 17 | Page
Mechanical Mowing
Spring, Summer,
and Fall before seed
set
Every 10 – 21 days Suppression of
seed production
2-3 years to
deplete seed
bank.
Chemical
2.5% solution
Glyphosate
(Rodeo)
Spring and Summer
when rosettes are
small
As often as needed
to kill new sprouts Death of plants Visible damage
in 1 - 3 weeks
Curly Dock (Rumex crispus/obtusifolius)
• Priority: Moderate
• State Noxious Weed Designation: Not Listed; Control is necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: Can outcompete native vegetation for resources and form monocultures, especially in
grazed pastures. Under some conditions curly dock can become toxic to livestock.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected Outcome Expected Time to
Success
Mechanical Severing plant 2” below soil
level with hand tools Year round When
needed
Death of individual
plant
Immediate for
individual plant;
many years for
patch
Mechanical Mowing
Spring
through Fall
before seed
set
Every 10 –
21 days
Reduction of seed
production and
stressing of plant prior
to chemical treatment
Many years for
control.
Mechanical Flower/Seed head removal Year round When
needed
Prevention of seed
spread N/A
Chemical
5 oz/acre or 1.2oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant
(1 qt/100 gal spray solution)
Spring when
plants are
actively
growing
Annually
Death of plants and
suppression of seed
growth
Visible damage in
1 - 3 weeks
Tall Fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus)
• Priority: Low
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List NL; Control is necessary to reduce spread.
• Reason for Concern: Tall Fescue has the potential to out compete native grasses such as blue grama and may lead
to depleted moisture of soils.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected Outcome Expected Time
to Success
Mechanical Severing plant 2” below
soil level with hand tools
Spring, Summer
and Fall Bi-annually
Death of plants and
prevention of seed
spread
Many years, to
exhaust seed
bank
Mechanical Mowing
Spring,
Summer, and
Fall before seed
set
Every 10 – 21
days
Suppression of
seed production N/A
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 18 | Page
Chemical 1.5% solution Glyphosate
(Roundup)
Spring and
Summer
As often as
needed to kill
new sprouts
Death of plants
Visible
damage in 1 -
3 weeks
Chemical
.25oz. -.50 oz./acre of
Chlorsulfuron 75 + .25%
Non-Ionic Surfactant
Spring and
Summer
As often as
needed to kill
new sprouts
Death of plants
Visible
damage in 1 -
3 weeks
Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila L.)
• Priority: Low
• State Noxious Weed Designation: Watch List; Control is necessary to reduce spread.
• Reason for Concern: In ideal conditions, Siberian Elm will grow rapidly and outcompete native species, harm
shade intolerant species and reduce overall biodiversity in a given area.
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Frequency Expected
Outcome
Expected Time to
Success
Mechanical
Severing plant 4” below soil
level with hand tools (for
small trees only)
Spring, Summer
and Fall As needed Elimination of
small patches
Dependent on
extent of
infestation
Manual Hand Pulling
(small trees only)
Spring, Summer,
and Fall before
seed set
As needed Elimination of
small patches
Dependent on
extent of
infestation
Chemical
1.5% solution of Garlon 4 as
a foliar application (for small
trees only)
Spring, Summer
and Fall As needed Death of
individual
Visible damage in
1 - 3 weeks
Chemical
Cut Stump treatment
20%- 50% Solution of
Glyphosate applied to
exposed Cambium Layer
Spring and Fall 2 times per
year
Death of
individual
Visible damage in
2 - 3 weeks
Common Mullein (Verbascum thapsus)
• Priority: Moderate
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List C; Control is recommended.
• Reason for Concern: Can create dense stands and near monocultures. Reduces forage for some wildlife.
Treatment
Type
Treatment Timing Frequency Expected
Outcome
Expected Time
to Success
Cultural
Maintenance of dense native
vegetation and avoidance of
disturbance
Reseed
immediately
following any
ground
disturbance
When
needed
Prevention of
seed
establishment
N/A
Mechanical
Severing plant 2” below soil
level with hand tools
Spring, Summer,
and Fall
When
needed
Death of plants
and prevention of
seed spread
Many years, if
ever to exhaust
seed bank
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 19 | Page
Mechanical Flower/Seed head removal Summer When
needed
Prevention of
seed spread N/A
Mechanical
Mowing
Spring, Summer,
and Fall before
seed set
Every 10 –
21 days
Suppression of
seed production N/A
Chemical
7 oz/acre or 6.4oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone) +
0.5% non-ionic surfactant (2
qt/100 gal spray solution)
Spring and Fall
before rosettes
bolt
Twice per
year
Death of plants
and suppression
of seed growth
Visible damage
in 1 - 3 weeks;
many years to
exhaust the
seed bank
Chemical
1-3 oz/acre chlorsulfuron
(Telar XP) + 0.5% non-ionic
surfactant (2 qt/100 gal of
spray solution); can be mixed
into aminopyralid solution
Spring and Fall
before rosettes
bolt
Twice per
year
Death of plants
and suppression
of seed growth
Visible damage
in 1 - 3 weeks;
many years to
exhaust the
seed bank
Herbicide Note:
Taking into consideration the proximity to homes and water, we have carefully selected 9 herbicides to be used on the
invasive species listed above. Some species, especially annuals and biennials growing in low density, may not require any
chemical applications. Regardless of the control method used, we recommend up to 3 treatments a year depending on
the labeled maximum annual application rate to ensure sufficient kill rates. The chemicals that we suggest are described
below. Always read, understand, and follow the label directions. The herbicide label is the LAW! Contact an herbicide
expert or your local extension office if there are any questions regarding usage.
• Aminopyralid (Milestone) is a safe, effective herbicide that can be used safely (wetland approved) around water
supplies (no surfactants) and is grazing approved. However, be sure to read the supplemental information
related to grazing and compost.
• Rodeo is wetland approved (no surfactants) glyphosate. The herbicide is not selective and will impact all plants
it contacts.
• Metsulfuron-methyl (Escort XP) is a selective herbicide that targets broadleaf weeds, brush, and several woody
vine species. Escort XP will break down readily in soil has a low soil residual. The active ingredient in Escort XP
(Metsulfuron-methyl) is very low in toxicity to wildlife even when used in high concentrations. It’s approved for
use near or around bodies of water but not when applied directly to water.
• Imazapic (Plateau) is listed under cheatgrass because it is a very selective herbicide and will not harm other
plants surrounding the target species. It is however not wetland approved. For this reason, careful consideration
will be given to the proper treatment method for this species upon further inspection of site.
• Imazapyr (Habitat) is a strong broad-spectrum herbicide with aquatic formulations that will provide control of
hairy willow-herb. It is only recommended for controlling hairy willow-herb.
• Chlorsulfuron (Telar) is a low-use rate broadleaf selective residual herbicide that, when applied in fall, can
reduce spring weed populations by up to 90%. Given it’s low-use rate (low chemical load) it won’t stress the
environment like other high-use rate herbicides. This herbicide will also allow some native forbs such as
milkweeds to grow while suppressing the target weed. Telar is not wetland approved.
• Indaziflam (Esplanade) is a selective preemergent herbicide that is used to control many annual grasses and
broadleaf weeds. Esplanade works by suppressing the germination of seeds and the emergence of seedlings in
the spring and is not wetland approved.
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 20 | Page
• Fluroxypyr (Vista XRT) is a broadleaf specific herbicide that provides excellent control of Kochia including
glyphosate and dicamba resistant biotypes. Vista XRT is not wetland approved.
• Quinclorac (Quinstar 4L) is used to suppress certain broadleaf weeds while having little to no effect on grasses. It
is safe to use up to the water’s edge but should not be used in areas that are/become inundated with water.
SECTION 3: Site Protection and Maintenance
Site Protection
In addition to being aware of the negative effects invasive plants can have on desired native vegetation, this plan
considers the impacts recreation and wildlife can have on newly planted vegetation.
Wildlife Control
Unmanaged impacts from livestock or wildlife in a revegetation site can be devastating to newly established plant
materials. As such, wildlife population such as deer and elk should be observed closely for a period of four to three years
post-construction. Once riparian and upland vegetation is well established, damage caused by typical levels of wildlife
browsing and grazing should not negatively impact the trajectory of recovery of the system. Currently, we do not
anticipate grazing by ungulates or rodents to be a significant concern on this site.
Site Maintenance
Maintenance is the collection of actions taken to help ensure a given stream restoration project performs as designed
and attains project objectives (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2007). Maintenance is closely tied to
management and involves the initial set of planned activities as well as unplanned activities following project
implementation. Without any maintenance, substantial efforts may be required to correct failures in structures or other
design elements. Active and frequent maintenance can often result in reduced “reconstruction” and “repair” costs down
the road.
Maintenance is most beneficial in the first three to five years following planting, apart from the occurrence of significant
(i.e., 50 years or greater) flood events. Excessive flood flows soon after planting can cause substantial erosion and slope
failure, resulting in unacceptable soil and plant loss. Such areas may need to be replanted, inter-planted, or reinforced
by other means. Other maintenance efforts may include: (a) placement of large woody debris and other toe protection
treatments on banks to redirect water away from the established areas, (b) repairs of in-stream rock structures, (c)
invasive species management, (d) supplemental irrigation, and (e) fencing. Results from monitoring efforts will
ultimately provide a list of recommended maintenance activities for Pole Star Community.
Because of the organic weed treatment methods being implemented on the Pole Star property, continual monitoring of
the NHBZ and wetland mitigation areas will be critical in managing weed populations, especially those adjacent to the
ditch where smooth brome treatment cannot occur.
Supplemental planting and seeding should occur in areas where vegetation is slow to establish. Type of seed (e.g.,
upland, riparian, etc.) to be broadcast should be hydrologically appropriate and confirmed with a qualified individual
prior to purchase or implementation.
Concluding Remarks
Our intention in developing this adaptive management plan is to address the need to enhance ecological functionality,
connectivity, and resilience. With an interdisciplinary team in place, and stemming from an understanding of
management goals, it is our hope this plan will allow for adequate monitoring and possible maintenance necessary to
support the restoration vision that led to the initial restoration design of Pole Star Community.
Pole Star Community: Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management 21 | Page
Bibliography
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and
Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Invertebrates, and Fish, 2nd edition. EPA 841-B-99-002, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Daubenmire, R. (1959). A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Science, 33, 43-64.
Giordanengo, J. M. (2016). Living Streambanks: A Manual of Bioengineering Treatments for Colorado Streams. Co-
published by: AloTerra Restoration Services, LLC and Golder Associates, Inc.
Hardy, T. P. (2005). WinXSPRO, A Channel Cross Section Analyzer, User’s Manual, Version 3.0. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Herrick, J. E. (2005). Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. Volume I: Quick Start.
Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press: Las Cruces, NM: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service, Jornada Experimental Range.
Lewis, D. L. (2009). Developing a Monitoring Program for Riparian Revegetation Projects . Davis, CA: University of
California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources: University of California Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources. Publication 8363.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2007). Stream Restoration Design (Part 654). In National Engineering
Handbook. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Overton, C. C., S. P. Woolrab, B. C. Roberts, and M. A. Radko. 1997. R1/R4 (Northern Intermountain Regions) Fish and
Fish Habitat Standard Inventory Procedures Handbook. General Technical Report Int-GTR-346. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Ogden, Utah.
Rosgen, D. L. (2001). A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate. Reno, NV.: In Proceedings of the
Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference (II: 9-15).
Thayer, G. W. (2003). Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, Volume One: A Framework for
Monitoring Plans Under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457). Silver Spring, MD:
NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science: NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No.
23(1).
Van Deventer, J. S. and W. S. Platts. 1983. Sampling and estimating fish populations from streams. Transactions of the
North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 48:349-354.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, I.-F. I. (2003). Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines. .
Olympia, WA: Washington State Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program.
Appendix A –Baseline Photo Points
Figure 1. Overview of Wetland from initial wetland delineation.
Appendix B – Monitoring Forms/Data Sheets
Line Point Intercept Form (Reference Sites) Observers: Project:
Date: Transect Photo: (yes/no) Point spacing (meter): 1 meter
Sample Point: Total Ground hits: total ground hits should = 100 Habitat Description:
Spp Code Ground hit, include all
herb. and shrubs < 3' (4
dots + 6 lines)
Spp Code Ground hit, include all herb.
and shrubs < 3' (4 dots + 6
lines)
Spp Code Low woodies (4 dots+6 lines)
Spp Code Med woodies (4 dots+6 lines)
Spp Code Tall trees (4 dots+6 lines)
Spp Code Overstory (4 dots+6 lines)
Bare Soil/Sand
Gravel/Cobble (<10")
Boulder (> 10") Sky/clouds (4 dots+6 lines)
Litter
PHOTO LABELS: Reference Type/Project Name-Property/Trans #/monitoring date (i.e., Alpine Ref./Culebra/TR 1/2021-0618)
CODES: Litter (includes wood & standing dead); Bedrock (doesn't move);
CANOPY HEIGHTS: low woodies (shrubs/trees 3-5' tall), med woodies (shrubs/trees 5-15'), tall trees (15-30), overstory canopy (> 30')
UNKNOWNS: AF = annual forb; BF = biennial forb; PF = perennial forb; AG = annual grass; PG = perennial grass; FORB; GRASS
- for unknowns, list genus or family if known, and use a unique name. In the General Site Description, describe the unknown in more detail,
and use the same unique name as you do above, so the description can be cross-referenced, should we positively ID the plant later.
General Site Description:
Appendix C - Weed Treatment Calendar
Table showing the general timing of different treatment recommendations outlined here. This is a useful tool for
planning weed management activities. Timing will vary from year to year depending on weather factors thus rendering
date ranges misleading. The best indicator of timing is often growth stage of the plant in which Spring is generally when
plants are emerging and growing rapidly; Summer is generally when plants are more fully developed and are growing
more slowly; Fall is generally when plants are beginning to produce (set) seed and draw energy stores to their roots in
the case of plants which overwinter; and Winter is when most plants are dormant or dead with the exception of some
winter annuals like cheatgrass and some mustards.
Time Frame Action Type Weed Species Action Priority
Late Winter Planning N/A Review treatment records and assess
management needs and resources. General
Late Winter Planning N/A Inventory and document herbicide
stock. General
Late Winter Planning N/A
Determine attainable weed
management priorities for the
following year.
General
Late Winter Planning N/A Schedule weed management
activities. General
Late Winter Planning N/A
Engage neighbors about planned
weed management activities and
attempt to enlist their support and
reciprocal activities on their side of
the fence.
General
Late Winter Planning N/A Determine target areas for controlled
grazing where applicable
Late Winter Planning Multiple Contact CDA for biocontrol
opportunities. General
Late
Winter/Early
Spring
Cultural N/A Reseed problem areas or areas of
recent disturbance with native seed. General
Early Spring
General N/A Calibrate spraying equipment. General
Early Spring Chemical Cheatgrass Treat with glyphosate High
Early Spring Mechanical Multiple Dig up and remove individuals and
roots. High
Spring Monitoring All Check previous year's treatments General
Spring Monitoring All
Assess weed presence and stage in
high traffic areas (roads, parking lots,
etc.)
General
Spring Mechanical Multiple Begin mowing weed patches to
suppress seed production. General
Spring Mechanical/Chemical All Treat high traffic areas to eliminate
weeds. General
Spring Mechanical Canada Thistle Mow patches that can be mowed High
Spring Mechanical Sweet Clover Dig/sever plant 2 inches below soil
and dispose of plant High
Spring Mechanical Prickly Lettuce Dig/sever plant 2 inches below soil
and dispose of plant High
Spring
Mechanical
Common
Kochia
Disk Kochia mats and water to
encourage flush of new Kochia High
Spring Mechanical Multiple
(Grass spp.)
Mow as low as possible in mid to late
May when grass is in the "boot" stage
of growth; repeat every 10 -21 days as
plants grow
High
Spring Chemical Common
Kochia Treat resprouts with floroxypyr High
Spring Chemical Smooth
Brome
Treat with glyphosate approximately 2
weeks after a mowing. High
Spring and Fall
Chemical Siberian Elm Begin cut stump treatments for
medium to large individuals Moderate
Spring and Fall Chemical Russian Olive Begin cut stump treatments for
medium to large individuals
Late Spring Biocontrol Field
Bindweed
Release Aceria malherbae mites in
large high-density patches High
Late Spring Monitoring All
Assess weed presence and stage in
public use and high traffic areas
(roads, parking lots, etc.)
General
Summer Chemical Siberian Elm Treat resprouts with Garlon 4 or
concentrated solution of glyphosate Moderate
Summer Chemical Russian Olive Treat resprouts with Garlon 3A or
concentrated solution of Glyphosate
Summer Mechanical Multiple Clip and bag any seed heads to
suppress seed dispersal High
Summer Biological Leafy Spurge Release Aphthona beetle between
June and July in high density patchs High
Summer Chemical
Biennials
(Thistles,
Mullien, etc.)
Apply appropriate herbicides at
Rosette stage
Summer Chemical All Treat all species with recommended
herbicides High
Summer Chemical Field
Bindweed Treat with Quinstar before seed set. High
Summer Monitoring All Assess spring chemical treatments General
Late
Summer/Fall Chemical Canada Thistle Treat with aminopyralid or
chlorsulfuron High
Fall Chemical Siberian Elm Treat resprouts with Garlon 4 or
concentrated solution of glyphosate Moderate
Fall Chemical Russian Olive Treat resprouts with Garlon 3A or
concentrated solution of Glyphosate
Fall Mechanical Multiple Begin mowing weed patches to
suppress seed production. High
Fall Mechanical Multiple Clip and bag any seed heads to
prevent seed dispersal High
Fall Mechanical Multiple
(Grass spp.)
Mow as low as possible in mid-season
of growth when grass is in the "boot"
stage; repeat every 10 -21 days as
plants grow
High
Fall Chemical All Treat all species with recommended
herbicides High
Late Fall Cultural N/A Reseed problem areas or areas of
recent disturbance with native seed. General