HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlans - 06/17/2025
Core Spaces at College and Trilby
Adaptive Management Plan
Prepared For: Kenneth Merritt , Director of Planning ; JR Engineering
Date: 6/17/2025
Core Spaces at College and Trilby: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 2 | P a g e
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 ........................................................................... 4
Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Monitoring Goals .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Monitoring Timeline and Responsibilities ........................................................................................................................ 6
Monitoring Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
SECTION 2: Preconstruction Wildlife Considerations ............................................................................................................... 8
Red-tailed Hawk ................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Burrowing Owl...................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Prairie Dog ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8
SECTION 3: Weed Management Strategies .............................................................................................................................. 9
Weed Management ............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Survey Summary................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Weed Management Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 12
General Treatment Strategies ............................................................................................................................................ 13
SECTION 4: Site Protection and Maintenance ........................................................................................................................ 14
Site Protection .................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Wildlife Control .................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Site Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
Revegetation Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Weed Management Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 16
Reporting ................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................................................................... 17
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix A – 90% Planset ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix B – Prairie Dog Management Plan.......................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix C – Monitoring Forms/Data Sheets ........................................................................................................................ 21
Appendix D – Proposed Treatment Schedule......................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix E: Species-Specific Treatment Recommendations ................................................................................................. 23
Core Spaces at College and Trilby: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 3 | P a g e
SECTION 1: Adaptive Management Strategies and Monitoring
Purpose
The purpose of the Core Spaces at College and Trilby Adaptive Management Plan (Plan) is to outline specific approaches,
strategies, and protocols related to the restoration resulting from the Core Spaces at College and Trilby Development
Project (“College and Trilby” or “the project”). This plan outlines the adaptive management process, including a site
monitoring strategy, designed to inform weed management, site protection, and other maintenance treatments (e.g.,
reseeding, planting, weed management, erosion control, etc.) necessary to accomplish the project’s restoration goals
stated below.
The project involves the development of residential buildings in currently undeveloped land in Fort Collins, CO. Alongside
development activities, wetland and upland habitats require mitigation and improvement. Goals result from the required
mitigation, being developed by the site owner, JR Engineering, and the City of Fort Collins, and are incorporated into
AloTerra’s scope of work for this adaptive management project. Primary goals of this project are to mitigate and improve
impacted wetlands, reduce non-native/noxious weed populations, increase native plant species diversity, and improve
overall aesthetics of the project site.
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 data provides
feedback for land managers and project designers, and allows for the comparison of project results with baseline
conditions. The development and implementation of maintenance treatments (e.g., weed management, irrigation, site
protection, spot seeding, etc.) is a critical step in the adaptive management cycle: monitor, analyze, prescribe, and
implement treatments; monitor, analyze…. It is expected that the frequency and intensity of monitoring and maintenance
treatments will diminish over time, as goals are met.
Core Spaces at College and Trilby: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 4 | P a g e
Wetland Mitigation and Natural Habitat Buffer Zone (NHBZ) Monitoring
Overview
Monitoring is the process of measuring or assessing specific physical, chemical, and/or bio logical parameters over time
(Thayer, 2003; Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2007). Monitoring should utilize consistent approaches so that
data can be accurately compared over the length of the monitoring effort (Lewis et al ., 2009). The type of monitoring
employed depends on the accuracy of the data required, and can have significant cost implications. Three general
monitoring types are provided below, with e xamples of specific questions they might answer:
• 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 conducted during or immediately after project construction to establish the
accuracy of construction.
• Was the project installed according to design specifications, permit requirements, and landowner/client
agreements?
• Effectiveness monitoring is used to assess general post-project conditions, with respect to project designs.
• Did the intended project outcomes get achieved, at the expected magnitude, over the appropriate time
frame? This is accomplished by comparing pre-project with post construction conditions.
• Validation monitoring is used to determine the cause-and-effect relationship between restoration treatments and
biotic or physical responses.
• Did wildlife, vegetation, or water quality respond to the changes in physical and biological attributes or
components brought about by the project?
Pre-project monitoring at College and Trilby was conducted by AloTerra in the form of an Ecological Characterization
Study as well as a rapid weed presence survey. Additional monitoring will be-ongoing as further design iterations are
completed.
Monitoring can use subjective (i.e., qualitative) or objective (i.e., quantitative) methods to help identify and address
project failures due to potential stressors, such as drought, insect damage, flooding, etc., and to inform maintenance
needs. Subjective methods, such as repeat photography or categorical monitoring forms, can effectively document site
changes and quickly inform maintenance activities necessary to correct problems. However, purely qualitative approaches
and casual observations can often over- or under-represent important data such as vegetation cover, and can vary
significantly from one observer to another. Such errors can occur due to 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 portrays higher vegetation canopy cover than what exists).
Conversely, quantitative monitoring is more data-driven and aims to measure project outcomes through science-based
methods designed to minimize 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 (e.g., bond release, SWMP cover requirements, USACE mitigation release, etc.), support
requests for contractors to address warranty items (e.g., a minimum of 50% vegetation cover), and support long-term
tracking of certain parameters (e.g., changes in plant community structure and composition over time).
Core Spaces at College and Trilby: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 5 | P a g e
At College and Trilby, 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?
• Are management activities (i.e., hiking, rural/residential landscaping, community gardening, 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.
A combination of subjective and objective methods is proposed, to balance cost effectiveness with objectivity. To strike
this balance, we propose integrating some categorical observations (i.e., high, moderate, low, none; or scoring 0 -5 for
various element conditions) into rapid assessments. However, it is essential 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.
Monitoring Goals
Specific restoration objectives must be identified for College and Trilby, so that monitoring results can be measured. The
following restoration objects are provided as a recommendation, and should be verified by the client. Additional goals
maybe required by various permit agencies such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, City of Fort Collins, and others.
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,
o This includes all listed and non-listed weeds such as kochia, cheatgrass, etc.
• ≥80% woody plant survival,
• No bare spots greater than 5 sqft.
o The intent of this metric is to ensure there are no significant unvegetated patches
Core Spaces at College and Trilby: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 6 | P a g e
Monitoring Timeline and Responsibilities
Vegetation monitoring should be conducted formally once per year, for three years following construction. Informal
monitoring should occur throughout the year during weed treatment visits. Formal vegetation monitoring should occur 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, and each time that weeds are treated, approximately 3 -4 times
per season.
Monitoring Methods
This section provides a summary of monitoring methods for native and non-native vegetation at the project.
Vegetation Cover: The line-point-intercept method will be used to quantify herbaceous vegetation cover in wetland
areas to quantify herbaceous vegetation cover. 6 transects are recommended in the wetland mitigation area (See
Figure 1). A product of this assessment data in wetlands will be to determine if hydrophytic vegetation is typical of the
expected wetlands in the region. Ocular estimates will be used to quantify vegetation coverage in uplands.
Wetland Conditions: Soils and hydrology should be assessed within the wetland each year, to determine the
trajectory of wetland conditions on-site. This will include identify hydric soil indicators, saturated soils, and regularly
measuring groundwater depths of existing pie zometers.
Survivorship: A simple quantitative measure to document shrub and tree survivorship is a survivorship inventory,
documenting where replacement planting is necessary.
Noxious Weed Assessment: A categorical observation-based protocol to count and identify weed populations.
Monitoring forms are attached in Appendix C.
Repeat Photography Points: A subjective assessment that will provide estimates of vegetation cover and revegetation
success, to inform gross changes in specific areas. Overall site aesthetics will be able to be observed during this time.
Photo Points should be established immediately prior to revegetation activities at strategic points that will
encapsulate site conditions.
Figure 1. Vegetation Monitoring Map with recommended transect locations.
College and Trilby Development: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 8 | P a g e
SECTION 2: Preconstruction Wildlife Considerations
Red-tailed Hawk
A red-tailed hawk nest has been identified near the project site, and a required 450-foot buffer has been established
around the nest, extending into the project area (see Figure 1). According to guidelines from the City of Fort Collins,
construction activities within this buffer cannot take place during the breeding season, typically from March 1 to July 15,
to avoid disturbance that could lead to nest abandonment or reproductive failure. Outside of this period, limited
construction may be permitted with appropriate monitoring and mitigation measures in place. Coordination with local
wildlife agencies is recommended to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations.
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl habitat may be present within or near the project area, particularly in association with prairie dog colonies.
According to the City of Fort Collins, if burrowing owls are nesting within 330 feet of the development limits, construction
is prohibited from April 1 through August 1 to avoid disturbing the nesting cycle. Prior to any prairie dog removal,
burrowing owl surveys are required to ensure compliance with local and state wildlife protection guidelines. These
surveys should be conducted in accordance with Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions
to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls to determine the presence of nesting owls and implement appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures.
Prairie Dog
Prairie dogs may be present within the project area and must be addressed prior to any ground disturbance. According to
the City of Fort Collins, if construction will occur in or through an area that contains or may contain prairie dogs, the
animals must either be relocated or the burrows fumigated immediately prior to grading. Relocation is not permitted
between February 1 and August 1 to avoid impacting dependent young. A burrowing owl survey is required prior to any
fumigation to ensure compliance with wildlife protection regulations. Additionally, proof of prairie dog eradication must
be provided before grading can proceed. To prevent recolonization following prairie dog removal, it is recommended that
silt fencing or a similar exclusion barrier be installed around the site perimeter. Further details on prairie dog removal,
avoidance, and management strategies are provided in the Prairie Dog Management Plan included in Appendix B.
City of Fort Collins 2024 Easement Policy and Application:
https://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/files/2024-easement-application.pdf?utm
Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls:
https://cpw.widencollective.com/assets/share/asset/hsamadtytq
College and Trilby Development: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 9 | P a g e
SECTION 3: 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. The Colorado Noxious Weed Act (C.R.S. 35-5.5-101-119) defines weeds as “alien plants or
part of alien plants that have been designated by rule as being noxious or has been declared a noxious weed by a local
advisory board, and meets one or more criteria: aggressively invades or is detrimental to economic crops or native plant
communities; is poisonous to livestock; is a carrier of detrimental insects, diseases, or parasites; the direct or indirect
presence of this plant is detrimental to the environmentally sound management of natural or agricultural ecosystems.”
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 the project
area. They 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 for 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 predato rs, 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.
During the initial assessments, a weed inventory was conducted through the creation of a comprehensive list of weeds
and their state rank (Table 1) by a Qualified Supervisor. An additional formal weed inventory will be conducted in the
during initial growing stages following revegetation to map problematic weeds with increasing accuracy. The first-year
post disturbance will be the most important in determining the presence, density, and distribution of weeds that may be
brought in from construction activities or currently exist on-site.
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/
College and Trilby Development: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 10 | P a g e
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 contro l resources to jurisdictions that choose to require
management of list C species.
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.
Not Listed (NL) – Non-native species that are not listed as noxious by the state of Colorado but were addressed by
AloTerra here due to potential problems posed by their presence such as interference with revegetation efforts or
proposed agricultural use.
When managing for weeds at the project, given the goals of increased biological diversity, 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.
Survey Summary
During the peak growing season, weed surveys should continue being conducted to better understand the extents of each
weed populations. Following revegetation treatments, additional surveys are required to understand weed presence due
to excessive disturbance from development activities. The weed list is presented in Table 1 with general priorities based
on problematic characteristics of the species identified in preliminary assessments. This list will likely change following
restoration activities. Dominant weed species currently spread throughout the site appear to be smoot h brome, field
bindweed, lamb’s quarter, and Canada thistle. Within the existing wetland, dominant weeds are common teasel and
Canada thistle. A variety of weedy trees including Russian olive and Siberian elm were also noted on -site.
College and Trilby Development: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 11 | P a g e
Table 1. Weed list for College and Trilby (NL = not listed)
Scientific Name Common Name
Priority
High/Med./Low
Listed
Status Overall Density
Arctium minus common burdock Low C Low
Bassia scoparia kochia* Med. NL Low
Bromus inermis smooth brome* Low NL Moderate
Bromus tectorum cheatgrass* High C Low
Carduus nutans musk thistle High B Low
Centaurea spp. knapweeds* High B Moderate
Chenopodium spp. lamb’s quarter/goosefoot Low NL Moderate
Cirsium arvense Canada thistle* High B Very High
Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Med. B Low
Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed* Med. C Moderate/High
Cynoglossum officinale hounds tongue* Med. B Very Low
Dipsacus laciniatus cutleaf teasel High B High
Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive* High B Moderate/Low
Melilotus albus/officinalis white or yellow sweet clover Low NL Low
Rumex crispus curly dock* Low NL Low
Salsola tragus Russian thistle* Med. NL Moderate
Ulmus pumila Siberian elm* Low C Low
Verbascum thapsus common mullein Med. C Low
*Herbicide necessary for effective control
College and Trilby Development: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 12 | P a g e
Weed Management Recommendations
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. Effective control of weeds will be an ongoing process for several years and will be an essential part of
maintaining restoration efforts in perpetuity.
Treating invasive species is a necessary step at College and Trilby to restore it to a more productive and natural condition.
This will also increase biodiversity, increasing the wildlife habitat will, provide greater protection of slopes and other
topographic features. This management plan is intended to inform general weed management strategies and approaches
before, during and after the construction of the proposed residencies. The plan reflects invasive species communities
present at the time of the assessment. Site management should integrate a variety of restoration and management
activities to control the invasion of non -native vegetation, which include:
• Comply with all state and local weed laws, regulations, and requirements. Information and contact information
can be found at the county website (https://www.weld.gov/Government/Departments/Public-Works/Weed-
Management),
• Avoid the use of any pre-emergent herbicides within the seeding areas,
• Selecting appropriate and diverse early- to mid-seral seed mixes with the potential to fully occupy a given area’s
botanical niches,
• Spot 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 ,
• 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 (trucks, hand tools, clothing and boots of residents and volunteers, and others),
• Monitor for the appearance of new populations of weeds. Treatment of small populations of weeds is often mor e
effective than attempting to combat large established populations,
• Spot treatment of weeds within re-seeded areas,
• 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.
College and Trilby Development: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 13 | P a g e
General Treatment Strategies
There are five primary approaches to treating noxious weeds. While using only one method to treat weeds can yield some
success, it is often most effective to use multiple treatment approaches in conjunction. For example, Canada thistle and
smooth brome are best controlled by mowing the patch and allowing it to regrow for 1 -3 weeks before applying an
herbicide with some residual activity to the patch. It is possible and desirable to treat some weed species mechanically
(mowing, hand pulling, etc.), but some species which reproduce by underground roots, have large energy reserves, or
have long lived seed banks will require the use of an herbicide to effective ly control.
Prevention – Ensuring that weeds are not introduced to or allowed to become established at the site as much as possible.
This is done by cleaning equipment used at the site, using weed free mulches and hay, and monitoring any work sites for
the appearance of noxious weeds
Cultural – The establishment of competitive and desired native vegetation at sites of soil disturbance and after weed
eradication efforts. This is a critical element of weed management without which weed control efforts often prove futile.
Mechanical – Consists of physical methods to remove, damage, or destroy weedy plants. These methods include hand
pulling, digging, seed head/flower removal, discing, and mowing. This method can be effective alone on annual and
biennial weeds such as winter annual mustards, cheatgrass, kochia, and musk thistle. However, it often stimulates the
spread of perennial species such as Canada thistle and thus must be used in conjunction with herbicide control.
Chemical – Application of herbicide to weedy vegetation. Often the most effective and time -efficient method of managing
weeds. Always read, understand, and follow the label directions. The herbicide label is the LAW! Herbicides can be
selective to a certain class of plants such as broad leaves or grasses or can be broad -spectrum meaning that they will
injure most plants which they contact. While there are often multiple herbicides labeled for use on any particular wee d
species, the examples provided are tho se that several sources (Colorado Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service,
and CSU Extension, UC Davis Weed Research and Information Center) indicated to be highly effective at relatively low
application rates. This is done in an effort to minimize co st and the amount of chemical applied. Herbicides are listed by
their active chemical in order to encourage the use of lower cost generic products where possible. Many weed species,
such as kochia and Russian thistle, can develop resistance to herbicides w ith continued application, so it is prudent to
rotate the herbicides used. Herbicides often work best when used in conjunction with other control methods such as
mowing, hand pulling, and seed head removal. When combining mechanical and herbicide applicati on, use a treatment
pattern of mechanical-regrow-herbicide. All treatments should be followed up with native species revegetation efforts to
prevent the reestablishment of weeds.
Biological – The use of grazing or highly species-specific arthropod predators or disease-causing agents to suppress and
weaken a dense population of a particular species of weed. It is important to note that biological control will not eradicate
a target weed from a site, but will reduce large, dense, and otherwise intractable populations to a state where other
methods of control are more feasible. It is also important to note that biological control is not a quick process; it typical ly
requires 3 – 5 years to become established. Biological control agents are available for purchase through the Colorado
Department of Agriculture Insectary. More information can be found the CDA website
(https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/biocontrol ).
College and Trilby Development: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 14 | P a g e
SECTION 4: 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. In many instances providing proper
education to frequent users through signage, community engagement, and proper communication will increase insight
into the project goals and increase success.
Wildlife Control
Unmanaged impacts from livestock, wildlife, or pets in a revegetation site can be devastating to newly established plant
materials. As such, wildlife population such as prairie dogs and deer should be observed closely for a period of three to
four years post-construction. Once wetland 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, the largest
concern would be the existing prairie dog population on-site, which should be addressed prior to revegetation activities.
Alongside developments significant dog populations can yield negative results on native revegetation efforts, and a plan
for signage or education should be created should this be a persistent problem.
Site Maintenance
Maintenance is the collection of actions taken to help ensure a given 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. (a) invasive species management, (b) supplemental irrigation, and (c) fencing. Results from monitoring
efforts will ultimately provide a list of recommended maintenance activities for the project.
Because of the weed treatment methods being implemented at College and Trilby, continual monitoring of the wetland
and upland areas will be critical in managing weed populations.
Revegetation Recommendations
Prior to successful permanent seeding, a significant reduction in noxious weeds must be observed. Further weed
treatment is needed a depletion of the weed seed bank has occurred. Temporary seeding may be required prior to final
revegetation, to act as competition and flush the seed bank of the noxious weeds on-site. Steps of preparation for
seeding in upland areas should include:
College and Trilby Development: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 15 | P a g e
In preparation of seeding the following steps should be taken:
1. Pre construction assessment and weed management/mitigation planning.
2. Meeting with clients, landowners and other concerned parties to determine next steps.
3. Pre-emergent broadcast application (timing extremely important)
4. Mowing in late April.
5. Waiting 2-3 weeks.
6. Discing the area to be seeded to stimulate a flush of weed seeds from the seed bank.
7. Waiting 2-3 weeks.
8. Mow any new weeds.
9. Broadcast treatment of area with glyphosate at a rate of 2% to kill weeds stimulated to grow by discing.
10. Salvaged soils should be managed and stock piled appropriately to prevent additional contaminants.
11. Spot spray, mechanical, manual treatments surrounding perimeter of treated area to prevent continued spread.
Type of seed (e.g., upland, temporary, permanent, etc.), and methods of seeding, as well as any amendments or soil
surface protection, shall follow the latest iteration of the revegetation plans from AloTerra (Appendix A). Any areas with
excessively large gaps will require spot inter-seeding. A proposed schedule detailing revegetation treatments is included
as Appendix D. Best management practices for controlling weeds during construction include:
1. Prevent spread; Make sure all equipment, clothing such as boots and tools are thoroughly cleaned and washed
before entering job site.
2. Continue to monitor and track invasive populations throughout project duration.
3. Continue to utilize prescribed weed control strategies where applicable. E.g. Stockpiles, around the perimeter of
the site, ground left exposed for more than a week, etc.
4. Ensure that certified weed free products are utilized when applicable.
5. Continue to adapt management plans to adjust to conditions on the ground.
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.
College and Trilby Development: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 16 | P a g e
Weed Management Recommendations
Weed management is needed throughout all the areas associated with College and Trilby. A combination of boom
spraying, spot spraying, mowing, weed whacking, seedhead removal, and discing will be used to reduce weed content and
encourage native species diversity. See Appendix E for a species-specific Weed Treatment Plan including
recommendations for mechanically, chemically, and biologically treating all weeds currently documented on -site.
Following revegetation and construction areas, ongoing maintenance will be for a minimum of 2 years. A list of steps to
follow include:
1. Once the native establishment areas have been seeded, spot spray herbicide treatments along with manual or
mechanic removal activities should be conducted in a sensitive manner to reduce impacts to newly germinating
native plants.
2. When utilizing irrigation, chemical applications should be timed accordingly and irrigation should be temporarily
paused to prevent herbicide run off.
3. Pre-emergent broadcast treatments should be avoided within all restored native seeding areas to prevent injury
to native establishment. If a broadcast treatment is deemed necessary, treatments should be conducted under
the close supervision of a Qualified Weed Supervisor.
4. Mechanical and manual control should be utilized when controlling weeds near desirable shrubs and trees.
Taking into consideration the proximity to homes and water, we have carefully selected herbicides to be used on the
invasive species listed above. Spot spraying with dedicated herbicides should take place at the time of year outlined in
Appendix E.
College and Trilby Development: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 17 | P a g e
Reporting
Annually, an adaptive management report will be provided to the site owner, to outline specific restoration and
maintenance treatments recommended, based on monitoring results, and in support of project goals. We anticipate that
report will be provided by the end of November each year.
Throughout the year, at key intervals as detailed in the proposed timeline, AloTerra will provide adaptive management
plan updates so that proper treatment timelines can be met. To inform ongoing treatment recommendations, a weed
management supervisor or restoration ecologist will monitor on -site conditions monthly. These rapid site assessments
will increase efficiencies and allow for treatment crews to prioritize weeds at the r ight time.
To further assist in providing future recommendations, treatment recordkeeping is required. For each treatment, an
application log shall be generated to include the following information:
1. Date and time of treatment.
2. Location of treatment.
3. Target species/species treated.
4. treatment methods.
5. Phenological stage of species treated.
6. Weather (including temperature, wind speed and direction).
7. Proximity to Rivers, Streams or other sensitive areas.
8. Amount of herbicide concentrate applied (including adjuvants).
9. EPA registration number of herbicide concentrate.
10. Estimated size of treated area (square feet or acres).
11. Name and herbicide license number of applicator(s).
12. Any other vital or pertinent information.
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 College and Trilby.
College and Trilby Development: Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 18 | P a g e
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, 2 nd 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 Servic e,
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 – 90% Planset
See external document.
Appendix B – Prairie Dog Management Plan
See external document.
Appendix C – 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 mor e
detail, and use the same unique name as you do above, so the description can be cross -referenced, should we positively ID the pla nt
later.
General Site Description:
Appendix D – Proposed Treatment Schedule
The calendar below illustrates the general timing of different treatment recommendations. 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 generall y when plants are fully
leafed out and begin to grow 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 ann uals like cheatgrass
and some mustards.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Intitial Meetings
Weed Management plan development
Review and revise plan as needed
Optional: Early Spring Pre-emergent broadcast application
Site visit and survey of invasive species
Post-emergence broadcast application
Herbicide spot spray treatments
Disking to flush seed bank
Mechanical Treatments (Mowing, weedwhacking, etc.)
Optional: Late Fall preemergent broadcast application
EOY Site visit- Review and revise treatments as necessary
Primary Tasks Year 1 Pre-construction
Proposed Schedule: College and Trilby
Appendix E: Species-Specific Treatment Recommendations
The information concerning weeds and weed treatment provided below is compiled from readily available public sources
with the primary sources being the Colorado Department of Agriculture, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the US Forest
Service, Colorado State University Extension, and the University of California Davis Weed Research and Information
Center. The species profiles are organized from highest priority to the lowest. Herbicides are identified by their primary
active chemical since there are many different brand names available, though common brands are provided
parenthetically.
Several treatment options have been provided to allow the client to select the option which works best with their land
use goals. The bolded options are those that are anticipated by AloTerra to be most effective treatments with attention
to the client’s desire to minimize the use of chemicals especially those with long residuals. However, some species may
need control using herbicide with residual action. The client should check with any organization involved in organic
farming to determine what methods will be best for organic agriculture and how any of the options provided below might
affect organic certification.
Treatment recommendations will vary based on species characteristics as well as current or expected species phenology
at time of treatment, e.g. Spring, Summer, or Fall. While the proposed timing of these recommended treatments may
fluctuate year to year and depending upon on site conditions, it is critical to note that successful control of these species
is best achieved before they reach a flowering or seeding stage.
Herbicides, when recommended, are identified by their primary active ingredient as well as the brand name of the
product of intended use. In cases where multiple options for treatments are provided, method/s will be most effective
for suppression while onsite and before beginning treatment.
Manual / mechanical removal: Manual and mechanical removal efforts, such as mowing or weed whacking, should begin
early in the growth period and continue through the growing season in order to maximize efficacy.
If and when additional invasive species communities or individuals are identified on site while monitoring or during the
time of treatment, these species should be added to the current plan and treatment strategies should be updated to
inform future management.
Common Burdock (Arctium minus)
● Priority: Low
● State Noxious Weed Designation: List C; Control is necessary to decrease spread.
● Reason for Concern: Common Burdock is an invasive biennial forb that is easily spread easily when the spines or
burs attach to humans, pets or livestock. This species prefers disturbed soils and can be outcompeted fairly well
in healthy stands of desirable grasses and forbs.
● Treatment Options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Expected Outcome
Expected
Time to
Success
Mechanical Mowing Spring through
fall
Reduction of seed
production and
stressing of plant
prior to chemical
treatment
2 – 10 years
for control.
Mechanical Hand pulling or digging up
plant and roots
Spring through
early Fall
Death of individual
plant
Immediate
for individual
plant; many
years for
patch
Chemical
4- 5oz/acre or 1 oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant
(1 qt/100-gal spray solution)
Spring through
early Fall
Death of plants
and suppression
of seed growth
Visible damage in
1 - 2 weeks
Common Kochia (Bassia 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 livestock, kochia may be toxic in large quantities. Litter from kochia may
chemically inhibit the growth of more desirable species. Kochia o ften spreads as a tumble weed and can travel
long distances. It has been shown that some communities of Kochia have become resistant to herbicides such as
glyphosate, which makes integrated management key to suppression and long -term control.
● Treatment options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Expected Outcome
Mechanical Disking/Mowing Spring through
Fall
Reduction of seed
production and
stressing of plant
prior to chemical
treatment
Chemical:
Pre-
emergent
Broadcast
App.
3.5-6.5oz/acre indaziflam
(Esplanade 200 SC)+ 1oz/acre
Telar xp
Fall after seeds
have dropped or
early spring
Prevention of seed
germination
Chemical:
Broadcast
App.
2 fl. oz/gal or 2 -4% glyphosate
solution (Roundup) + 0.25%
v/v non ionic surfactant
(Brewer 90-10)
Spring through
mid-Summer
Death of plants;
suppression of
seed production
Chemical
Spot
Treatment
6-22 oz/acre Floroxypyr (Vista)
) + 0.25% non-ionic surfactant
(1 qt/100 gal of spray solution)
Post emergence
from seedling to
bloom
Death of plants;
especially resistant
biotypes
Smooth brome (Bromus inermis)
● Priority: Medium
● State Noxious Weed Designation: NL; If left unchecked, will create monoculture.
● Reason for Concern: This species is wide spread throughout North America. Originally introduced for forage and
eventually utilized as erosion control, Smooth brome is an aggressive competitor with native species that can be
difficult to control once it becomes established. The species is drought tolerant and spreads through both seeds
and rhizomes. For these reasons, it has high potential to form monocultures. Once established, Smooth brome
alters native plant communities and displaces native plants thus, lowering overall diversity and impacting wildlife.
● Treatment options:
Treatment
Type
Treatment Timing
Expected
Outcome
Mechanical Mowing/String
Trimming
Spring and Fall before
seed are present
Suppression of
seed production
Chemical:
Pre-
emergent
Broadcast
App.
3.5-6.5oz/acre
indaziflam (Esplanade
200 SC)+ 1oz/acre
Telar xp
Fall after seeds have
dropped or early spring
Prevention of
seed
germination
Chemical:
Broadcast
App.
2 fl. oz/gal or 2- 4%
glyphosate solution
(Roundup) + 0.25%
v/v non ionic
surfactant (Brewer 90-
10)
Spring through mid-
Summer
Death of plants;
suppression of
seed production
Chemical:
Spot spray
App.
2 fl. oz/gal or 1.5%
glyphosate solution
(Roundup) + 0.25%
v/v non ionic
surfactant (Brewer 90-
10)
Early Spring during
early leafy stage; Fall
before soils freeze.
Mow first to remove
old growth.
Death of
individual plants;
Prevention of
further spread
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 Options:
Treatment
Type
Treatment
Timing
Expected
Outcome
Expected Time
to Success
Mechanical
Digging plant and as
much of roots as
possible
Spring; narrow
window of 1 week
after flowering.
Death of
individual plant
Immediate for
individual plant;
Several years for
patch seed bank
depletion.
Mechanical
Mowing
Year round Suppression of
seed production
2-3 for patch
seed bank
depletion
Chemical
2% glyphosate solution
+ 0.25% v/v non ionic
surfactant
Early Spring before
native perennials
emerge
Death of
individual
plants
2-3 years to
deplete seed
bank.
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 strea m sedimentation. Musk thistle also has allelopathic qualities
meaning it can inhibit the growth of surrounding vegetation. This activity especially effects nitrogen fixing species
giving this species the potential to cause long- term declines in soil nitrogen input.
• Treatment options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing
Expected
Outcome
Manual Flower/Seed head removal Summer through Fall; When Seeds are
present
Prevention of
seed spread
Chemical:
Pre-
emergent
Broadcast
App.
3.5-6.5oz/acre indaziflam
(Esplanade 200 SC)+
1oz/acre Telar xp
Fall after seeds have dropped or early
spring
Prevention of
seed germination
Chemical:
Broadcast
App.
2 fl. oz/gal or 2 -4%
glyphosate solution
(Roundup) + 0.25% v/v
non ionic surfactant
(Brewer 90-10)
Spring through mid-Summer
Death of plants;
suppression of
seed production
Chemical
Spot
Treatment
5 oz/acre or 1 fl. oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone)
+ 0.25% non-ionic
surfactant (1 qt/100 gal
spray solution)
Spring; on rosettes and until flowering;
incorporate mowing if possible
Death of plants
and suppression
of seed growth
Chemical
Spot
Treatment
7 oz/acre or 1.2 oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone)
+ 0.25% non-ionic
surfactant (Brewer 90-10)
(1 qt/100 gal spray
solution)
Fall, at time of seed set as plants enter
dormancy; incorporate mowing if
possible
Death of plants
and suppression
of seed growth
Spotted knapweed/Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea spp.)
● Priority: High
● State Noxious Weed Designation: List B; Control is required and necessary to decrease spread.
● Reason for Concern: Both spotted knapweed and diffuse knapweed share similar properties and have the
potential to form hybrids with each other. Both species have allelopathic properties that may damage or degrade
surrounding plant communities. Both species can survive in a variety of settings and have spread prolifically
throughout the western United States.
● Treatment Options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Expected Outcome
Chemical
5 oz/acre or 1.2oz/gal aminopyralid (Milestone) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant (Brewer 90-10) (1
qt/100-gal spray solution)
Spring during rosette or bolting
stage; Higher rates may be
required for mature plants
Death of Plants and
suppression of seed
growth
Mechanical Mowing or weed whacking Spring and Summer before seeds
are present
Prevention of seed
formation
Lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album)
● Priority: Low
● State Noxious Weed Designation: Not Listed; Control is necessary to decrease spread.
● Reason for Concern: Lamb’s quarters is usually an early successional species that has the potential to form near
monocultures if not treated early upon detection. While some infestations may persist despite ongoing
treatment, preventing seed production accompanied by native seeding and establishment of a desirable plant
community over time, are a great way to eventually outcompete this weedy species.
● Treatment options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Expected Outcome
Mechanical Mowing Spring through
Summer
Reduction of seed
production and
stressing of plant
prior to chemical
treatment
Chemical:
Pre-
emergent
Broadcast
App.
3.5-6.5oz/acre indaziflam
(Esplanade 200 SC)+
1oz/acre Telar xp
Fall after seeds
have dropped or
early spring
Prevention of seed
germination
Canada thistle (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. Due to
its ability to spread through both seed dispersal as well as Rhizomes, herbicides are most effective when treating
moderate to large populations of this species.
● Treatment options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Expected Outcome
Manual Flower/Seed head
removal
Summer and Fall; When
Seeds are present
Prevention of seed
spread
Mechanical Mowing dense patches Spring-Fall
Stresses plants,
suppression of
seed growth
Chemical:
Pre-emergent
Broadcast
App.
3.5-6.5oz/acre
indaziflam (Esplanade
200 SC)+ 1oz/acre
Telar xp
Fall after seeds have
dropped or early spring
Prevention of seed
germination
Chemical:
Broadcast
App.
2 fl. oz/gal or 2- 4%
glyphosate solution
(Roundup) + 0.25% v/v
non ionic surfactant
(Brewer 90-10)
Spring through mid-
Summer
Death of plants;
suppression of
seed production
Chemical:
Spot
Treatment
7 oz/acre or 1.2oz/gal
aminopyralid
(Milestone) + 0.25%
non-ionic surfactant
(Brewer 90-10) (1
qt/100-gal spray
solution)
Spring through Summer;
Fall before dormancy
Death of plants
and suppression of
seed growth
Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare)
● Priority: Moderate
● State Noxious Weed Designation: List B; Control is required and necessary to decrease spread.
● Reason for Concern: Bull Thistle prefers disturbed areas and is often found along roadsides, overgrazed
rangeland, areas where logging has taken place and throughout pastures. It prefers Nitrogen rich soils and can
grow in dry or moist conditions. If left unchecked, Bull thistle has the potential to outcompete desirable
vegetation and become the dominant species in a given area, degrading natural areas and decreasing biodiversity.
● Treatment Options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing
Expected
Outcome
Chemical
5 oz/acre or 1oz/gal
aminopyralid
(Milestone) + 0.25%
non-ionic surfactant
(Brewer 90-10) (1
qt/100-gal spray
solution)
Spring and Fall during
Rosette or bolting
stage
Death of plants
and suppression
of seed growth
Mechanical
Severing plant 2”
below soil level with
hand tools
Spring through Fall Death of individual
plant
Manual Flower/Seed head
removal Summer through Fall Prevention of seed
spread
Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)
• Priority: High
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List C; If left unchecked, will create monoculture.
• 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
is also mildly toxic to grazing animals.
• Treatment options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing
Expected
Outcome
Chemical:
Broadcast
App.
2 fl. oz/gal or 2- 4% glyphosate solution (Roundup) +
0.25% v/v non ionic surfactant (Brewer 90-10)
Spring through early
Summer
Death of
plants;
suppression
of seed
production
Chemical
Spot
Treatment
6-22 oz/acre Floroxypyr (Vista) ) + 0.25% non-ionic
surfactant (1 qt/100 gal of spray solution)
Post emergence from
seedling to bloom
Death of
plants;
especially
resistant
biotypes
Chemical
Spot
Treatment
.75- 1pt/acre or.5 oz/gal Quinclorac (Quinstar 4L)+
.3oz Methylated seed oil (Sunwet)
Late summer into Fall,
before first frost
Death of
individual
plants
Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale)
• 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, forestlands, croplands and riparian
areas, and is an effective competitor that readily displaces desirable species, establishing monocultures and
further degrading forage quality in disturbed habitats. Seeds are Velcro-like and are a nuisance to wildlife, and
livestock. This species is also toxic to horses and cattle.
• Treatment options:
Treatment
Type
Treatment
Timing
Expected
Outcome
Expected Time
to Success
Mechanical
Seedhead/Flower
Removal
Summer through Fall
Suppression of
seed growth
and
dispersal
3- 5 years
Chemical
1-1.5 oz/acre or 0.1-
.2oz/gal Chlorsulfuron
(Telar xp) +0.25% non-
ionic surfactant
Spring and summer
during rosette to bolting
stages
Death of plants
and suppression
of seed
formation
3-5 years
Common or Cutleaf Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum/Dipsacus lanciniatus)
• Priority: High
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List B; Control is required and necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: Teasel can be an aggressive competitor allowing it to displace desirable plants and form a
monoculture. Its presence reduces forage availability and contributes to decline in species diversity and range
quality.
• Treatment Options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing
Expected
Outcome
Expected Time to
Success
Mechanical Mowing Spring through summer
before seed set
Reduction of
seed
production
Many years, if
ever
Mechanical Seed head/Flower
Removal
Spring through summer
before seed set
Reduction of
seed
production
Many years, if
ever
Chemical
5 oz-7oz/acre or 1-
1.2oz/gal
aminopyralid
(Milestone) + 0.25%
non-ionic surfactant
(Brewer 90-10) (1
qt/100-gal spray
solution)
Spring through fall on
actively growing
vegetation. Plants die
at seed set.
Death of plants
and
suppression of
seed growth
Visible damage
in 1 - 3 weeks.
Control in
several years.
Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)
• Priority: High
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List C; Control is necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: Russian olive 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 Options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Expected Outcome
Expected
Time to
Success
Mechanical Hand pulling small individual Year round Elimination of
small patches
Several Years
Chemical
50% - 100%
Glyphosate (Roundup) for cut-
surface treatments
Summer, Fall 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 or injection.
Summer, Fall Death of plants
and resprouts
Visible
damage in 1 -
3 weeks
White or yellow sweet clover (Melilotus albus/officinalis)
● 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 options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Expected Outcome
Mechanical Severing plant 2” below soil
level with hand tools
Spring and
Summer
Death of plants and
prevention of seed
spread
Mechanical Mowing or weedwacking
Spring, Summer,
and Fall before
seed set
Suppression of seed
production
Chemical:
Pre-
emergent
Broadcast
App.
3.5-6.5oz/acre indaziflam
(Esplanade 200 SC)+
1oz/acre Telar xp
Fall after seeds
have dropped or
early spring
Prevention of seed
germination
Chemical:
Broadcast
App.
2 fl. oz/gal or 2- 4%
glyphosate solution
(Roundup) + 0.25% v/v non
ionic surfactant (Brewer 90-
10)
Spring through
mid-Summer
Death of plants;
suppression of seed
production
Chemical:
Spot Spray
App.
5 oz/acre or 1 oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant
(Brewer 90-10) (1 qt/100 gal
spray solution)
Spring and
Summer Death of plants
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 options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Expected Outcome
Manual Flower/Seed head removal Spring through
Fall
Prevention of seed
spread
Mechanical Mowing
Spring through
Fall before seed
set
Reduction of seed
production and
stressing of plant
prior to chemical
treatment
Chemical:
Pre-
emergent
Broadcast
App.
3.5-6.5oz/acre indaziflam
(Esplanade 200 SC)+
1oz/acre Telar xp
Fall after seeds
have dropped or
early spring
Prevention of seed
germination
Chemical:
Broadcast
App.
2 fl. oz/gal or 2- 4%
glyphosate solution
(Roundup) + 0.25% v/v non
ionic surfactant (Brewer 90-
10)
Spring through
mid-Summer
Death of plants;
suppression of
seed production
Chemical
5 oz/acre or 1 oz/gal
aminopyralid (Milestone) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant
(Brewer 90-10) (1 qt/100 gal
spray solution)
Spring when
plants are
actively growing
Death of plants
and suppression of
seed growth
Russian thistle (Salsola tragus)
● Priority: High
● State Noxious Weed Designation: Not Listed; Control is necessary to decrease spread.
● Reason for Concern: Russian thistle 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 decompo sing. Russian Thistle also becomes a tumble weed. Acts as a host for
some agricultural pathogens and pests.
● Treatment options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Expected Outcome
Mechanical Mowing Spring through
fall
Reduction of seed
production and
stressing of plant
prior to chemical
treatment
Chemical:
Pre-
emergent
Broadcast
App.
3.5-6.5oz/acre indaziflam
(Esplanade 200 SC)+ 1oz/acre
Telar xp
Fall after seeds
have dropped or
early spring
Prevention of seed
germination
Chemical:
Broadcast
App.
2 fl. oz/gal or 2- 4% glyphosate
solution (Roundup) + 0.25%
v/v non ionic surfactant
(Brewer 90-10)
Spring through
mid-Summer
Death of plants;
suppression of
seed production
Chemical:
Spot spray
App.
1 oz/acre or 0.01 oz/gal
chlorsulfuron (Telar XP) +
0.25% non-ionic surfactant (1
qt/100 gal of spray solution);
can be mixed into 2,4-D
solution
Spring; on
rosettes and until
budding;
incorporate
mowing if
possible
Death of plants
and suppression of
seed growth; allow
flush of native
milkweeds
Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila)
• Priority: Moderate
• State Noxious Weed Designation: List C; Control is necessary to decrease spread.
• Reason for Concern: A fast growing and highly adaptable species. Crowds out native vegetation and reduces
habitat quality and native tree cover.
• Treatment Options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Expected Outcome
Expected
Time to
Success
Mechanical Hand pulling small individual Year round Elimination of
small patches
Several Years
Chemical
50% - 100%
Glyphosate solution for hack
and squirt treatments
Summer, Fall Death of plants
and resprouts
Visible
damage in 1 -
3 weeks;
control in 1-3
years
Chemical
50% - 100% triclopyr amine
(Garlon 3A) for frill treatment
or injection.
Summer, Fall
Death of small
plants and
resprouts
Visible
damage in 1 -
3 weeks;
control in 1-3
years
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.
Preventing seed production is critical as one plant can produce upwards of 250,00 seeds at a time.
• Treatment options:
Treatment
Type Treatment Timing Expected Outcome
Mechanical Severing plant 2” below soil level
with hand tools
Spring, Summer,
and Fall
Death of plants and
prevention of seed
spread
Manual Flower/Seed head removal Summer, Fall Prevention of seed
spread
Chemical:
Pre-emergent
Broadcast App.
3.5-6.5oz/acre indaziflam
(Esplanade 200 SC)+ 1oz/acre Telar
xp
Fall after seeds
have dropped or
early spring
Prevention of seed
germination
Chemical:
Broadcast App.
2 fl. oz/gal or 2- 4% glyphosate
solution (Roundup) + 0.25% v/v non
ionic surfactant (Brewer 90-10)
Spring through
mid- Summer
Death of plants;
suppression of seed
production
Chemical
7 oz/acre or 1.2 oz/gal aminopyralid
(Milestone) + 0.5% non-ionic
surfactant (Brewer 90-10) (2 qt/100
gal spray solution)
Spring and Fall
before rosettes
bolt
Death of plants and
suppression of seed
growth
Included below are two tables that synthesize the methodology used to treat specific weeds noticed onsite.
Herbicides include application rates, methodology, and timelines that coincide with the above species
descriptions.
Table 1. Herbicides and Application Rates by Species
Method Herbicide Species Controlled Application Rate
Late Winter, Spring or
Summer broadcast
application
Glyphosate (Roundup,
Rodeo, etc.)
All Species Controlled or
suppressed*
2-4% solution by volume
Late Fall pre-emergent
broadcast application
Esplanade 200SC+Telar xp Cheatgrass, Canada thistle,
Musk thistle, Chenopodium
spp., Common mullein,
Yellow sweet clover, Musk
thistle, Curly dock
3.5-6.5oz/acre indaziflam
(Esplanade 200 SC)+
1oz/acre Telar xp
Spot spray applications Milestone Canada thistle, Common
Burdock, Musk thistle, Bull
thistle, Common mullein,
Teasel, Knapweeds, Yellow
sweet clover, Musk thistle,
Curly dock
4- 7 fl. oz/acre or 1- 1.2 fl.
oz/gal
Spot spray applications Glyphosate product
(Roundup, Rodeo, etc.)
Smooth brome, Cheatgrass,
Russian thistle, Bindweed
2 fl oz/gal or .75%-2% by
Volume
Spot spray applications Telar XP Houndstongue 1-1.5 oz/acre or .01- .2
oz/gal
Spot spray applications Quinstar 4L
Field bindweed .75-1pt/acre or .5 oz/gal
Spot spray application Vista XRT Kochia, Bindweed 6-22 oz/acre or 2- 4oz/gal
Cut stump treatment Garlon 3A Siberian elm, Russian olive 50% Solution of Garlon 3A
and water
*Assumes no resistant strains.
Table 2. Manual and Mechanical Treatments by Species
Equipment/Method Species Controlled
Trimmer, Weed Whacker, Mower, Disking Common burdock, Kochia, Smooth brome, Canada
thistle, Bull thistle, Musk thistle, Chenopodium
spp., White sweet clover, Russian thistle, Curly
dock
Hand Tools; Digging up or severing roots (Shovel
or trowel)
Musk thistle, Bull thistle, Common burdock, White
sweet clover, Curly dock, Mullein
Clippers/Seedhead Removal Canada thistle, Musk thistle, Bull thistle,
Houndstongue, Curly dock, Mullein
REFERENCES:
Colorado State University Extension, Weed Resources
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/sam/weeds.html
Colorado Weed Management Association
https://cwma.org/
Larimer County Herbicide Guide
https://www.larimer.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2017/herbicide_.pdf
Boulder County Noxious weeds and Invasive Species Management
https://www.bouldercounty.org/property-and-land/land-use/noxious-weeds/
Colorado Department of Agriculture Herbicide Recommendations
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z7zZtAgRP6rK4pRE7EB54GLnPlJDzz2M/view
Colorado Department of Agriculture Noxious Weeds Identification List
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/agconservation/noxious -weed-species
University of California, Davis Weed Research Center
https://wric.ucdavis.edu/