HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 - Greenways Habitat Maintenance Report
CITY OF BOULDER
INFORMATION ITEM FOR:
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES - April 28, 2004
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD - May 10, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD - May 12, 2004
PLANNING BOARD - May 6, 2004
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD - May 17, 2004
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - April 26, 2004
GREENWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE INFORMATION ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2004
SUBJECT: Greenways Habitat Maintenance Report
PREPARING DEPARTMENT:
Anne Noble - Greenways Coordinator
Nancy Steinberger - Greenways Project Manager
PURPOSE: The Greenways Habitat Maintenance Report evaluates the effectiveness of the
Greenways Habitat Maintenance Program based on the first two years of data. This report is
available upon request (contact Anne Noble at 303-441-3242 or nobleakci.boulder.co.us) or
on the website at:
http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/publicworks/depts/utilities/projects/greenways/index.htm under
the Habitat Maintenance Program. If you have any comments or concerns regarding the
Habitat Maintenance Program, please pass them along to your Greenways Advisory
Committee representative. If you have questions on this material, please contact Annie
Noble.
FISCAL IMPACT: $75,0004150,000 per year.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2002 the City of Boulder Greenways Program initiated a mechanical weed control program with the intent
of improving habitat quality along the Greenways trail and stream corridor system. In its first two seasons
(summers of 2002 and 2003) the Greenways Habitat Maintenance program has made measurable
improvements in on-the-ground habitat conditions and has operated well within the established budget.
Specific accomplishments include treatment of 79 acres of riparian areas in 2002 and 33 acres in 2003.
The program has achieved several early successes, including the reduction in patch sizes of target weeds at
30 locations, and the reduction in weed densities at 23 locations. Weed control objectives are on track to
being met at 24 locations, with 8 additional locations partially being met. In addition, the program has
completed two large-scale re-vegetation projects, and has increased the general stewardship of the
Greenways corridors. The program has operated well within the established budget, and is therefore
recommended by staff to be continued as part of the Greenways program. The Boards are requested to
review the Evaluation Report and make suggestions to their Greenways Advisory Committee representatives
regarding the program activities and funding. A recommendation by the Greenways Advisory Committee to
the city's Planning Board and Council regarding funding of this program will be requested during the 2005-
2010 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process.
BACKGROUND
The city of Boulder Greenways system is comprised of a series of corridors along riparian areas which are
managed for multiple objectives. The Habitat Maintenance program was developed as a recommendation of
the Greenways Master Plan update (December 2001) in response to the need for increased weed control and
habitat maintenance along these important and valuable corridors. The purpose of the Greenways habitat
maintenance program, as stated in the Master Plan, is to address weeds along the Greenways Corridors with
the intent of improving habitat quality. Three goal statements were developed based on the program
purpose:
To improve habitat quality by removing target weed species from priority areas along the Greenways
using a tiered management approach based on threat and control effectiveness
To improve habitat conditions by planting native seed in weed removal locations and by restoring
native landscapes at selected project sites
To increase the stewardship of the Greenways corridors through public education, interdepartmental
cooperation, and participation in Greenways program activities.
Each of these goals was then broken into a set of objectives, with specific tasks and measurements of
success. The report provides the data for the first two years of the program, and evaluates the effectiveness
of the program in meeting the stated objectives.
The 2002 Greenways budget dedicated $150,000 (out of the $450,000 budget) toward habitat maintenance
after a recommendation for approval in a joint meeting (in June 2001) by the Water Resources Advisory
Board and the Transportation Advisory Board. The motion made by the WRAB/TAB included a request for
review of this maintenance budget after two years (two growing seasons). The Greenways Advisory
Committee (GAC) recommended that the $150,000 dedication toward habitat maintenance be continued in
the 2003 and 2004 budgets.
Discussion
The report describes each case, species, patch area and patch density for 2002 and 2003. In addition, the
report evaluates the measures of success in achieving the stated goals. Using the first two years of data the
program achieved several early successes, including the reduction in patch sizes of target weeds at 30
locations, and the reduction in weed densities at 23 locations. Based on the established measures of success,
weed control objectives are on track to being met at 24 locations, and are partially being met at 8 additional
locations. Success was consistently achieved with biennials such as musk thistle, scotch thistle, and teasel.
This matches the expected result, since these species respond well to mechanical control. Interestingly, some
success was also achieved with two creeping perennials (perennial pepperweed and purple loosestrife),
which do not typically respond to mechanical control.
The 2002-2007 Greenways CIP included $150,000 per year for the habitat maintenance effort. In 2002
approximately $76,000 was spent on salaries, materials, equipment, and training to implement the habitat
maintenance program. In 2003, the cost of the program was slightly less. The actual costs have been lower
than the budgeted amount due to a reduced crew size (3 full time interns instead of 5), the use of a utility cart
instead of pick-up trucks, no use of chemicals, and in-house preparation of the weed manual and annual
reports instead of hiring a consultant.
Staff recommendation
The program is meeting the stated goals and objectives and has operated well within the established budget,
and is therefore recommended by staff to be continued as part of the Greenways program.
CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
OF P.O.Box 791
1739 Broadway
BOULDER Boulder, Colorado 80306-0701
GREENWAYS
HABITAT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
Evaluation Report
2002 and 2003 Seasons
April 5, 2004
1
Table of Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Background
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
2
ABSTRACT
In 2002 the City of Boulder Greenways Program initiated a mechanical weed control program
with the intent of improving habitat quality along the Greenways trail and stream corridor
system. In its first two seasons (summers of 2002 and 2003) the Greenways Habitat
Maintenance program has made measurable improvements in on-the-ground habitat conditions
and has operated well within the established budget. Specific accomplishments include
treatment of 79 acres of riparian areas in 2002 and 33 acres in 2003. Species treated both years
include: purple loosestrife, sulfur cinquefoil, diffuse knapweed, Scotch thistle, musk thistle,
poison hemlock, bouncingbet, perennial pepperweed, perennial sweetpea, dame's rocket, hounds-
tongue, myrtle spurge, teasel, Canada thistle, and hoary cress. Species treated in 2002 only were:
Mediterranean sage, white horehound, and buffalobur. Species treated in 2003 only were:
dalmatian toadflax, yellow toadflax, and Russian olive. In 2003 an emphasis was placed on
revegetation, which included seeding of the Valmont Fish Bowl site and native landscape
restoration and water quality enhancements at the Basemar project site. The program has
achieved several early successes, including the reduction in patch sizes of target weeds at 30
locations, and the reduction in weed densities at 23 locations. Weed control objectives are on
track to being met at 24 locations, with 8 additional locations partially on track. The program
also monitors and maintains numerous wetland mitigation sites, and has increased the general
stewardship of the Greenways corridors.
INTRODUCTION
The city of Boulder Greenways system is comprised of a series of corridors along riparian areas
including Bear Canyon Creek, Boulder Creek, Elmer's Two-mile Creek, Goose Creek, Fourmile
Canyon Creek, Skunk Creek, South Boulder Creek, and Wonderland Creek. Each creek
included in the Greenways system is managed for multiple objectives. Habitat protection, water
quality enhancement, storm drainage and flood plain management, transportation, recreation, and
cultural resources are the main criteria governing the program.
During the Greenways Master Plan Update process in 2001, maintenance practices were
evaluated and it was determined that habitat maintenance and weed control were not being
adequately addressed under current funding and staffing levels. Construction activities such as
the building of trails introduce a disturbance, making these areas susceptible to weed
infestations. Because the Greenways system follows the stream corridors, these areas are
typically valuable habitat for wildlife species. The 1999 Greenways Vegetation Assessment
identified weed control as an important component of managing the Greenways for habitat. In
nearly every reach of riparian areas throughout the city, there was a recommendation to control
noxious weeds and plant native vegetation.
The purpose of the Greenways habitat maintenance program, as stated in the Master Plan (2001),
is to address weeds along the Greenways corridors with the intent of improving habitat quality.
The 2002 Greenways budget dedicated $150,000 (out of the $450,000 total budget) toward
habitat maintenance after a recommendation for approval in a joint meeting by the Water
Resources Advisory Board and the Transportation Advisory Board in June 2001. The motion
made by the WRAB/TAB included a request for review of this maintenance budget after two
growing seasons. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the costs and benefits of the first two
years of the program to help evaluate the continuation of this program as part of the Greenways
CIP.
3
BACKGROUND
The project area consisted of segments of the Greenways trail and stream corridor system within
the City of Boulder, and some Open Space and Parks lands. The current reporting period is
January 2001 - December 2003, which covers the first two field seasons of the program. All
planning, weed control, revegetation, and reporting activities were performed by city of Boulder
staff.
Purpose
As stated in the Greenways Master Plan update (2001) the purpose of the Greenways habitat
maintenance program is to address weeds along the Greenways Corridors with the intent of
improving habitat quality. Three goals were developed in support of this purpose statement:
Goals
1. Weed Control: To improve habitat quality by removing target weed species from priority
areas along the Greenways using a tiered management approach based on threat and
control effectiveness
2. Restoration: To improve habitat conditions by planting native seed in weed removal
locations and by restoring native landscapes at selected project sites
3. Stewardship: To increase the stewardship of the Greenways corridors through public
education, interdepartmental cooperation, and participation in Greenways Program
activities
Each goal was broken into a set of objectives, tasks, and measurements of success as shown on
the Goal Worksheet Tables and described below.
Weed Control Objectives
The weed control goal statement is, "To improve habitat quality by removing target weed species
from priority areas along the Greenways using a tiered management approach based on threat
and control effectiveness." Objectives to achieve this goal are:
Eradication
a Reducing patch size until all target weed plants are eliminated, the seed bank is
depleted, and reproductive inputs are cutoff (e.g. no dogs, no wind).
Lit Species and sites where this applies are only newly seeded areas with annual weeds.
Threat and effectiveness are both high (8 to 10).
Patch size reduction
0 Preventing seed spread and reducing patch size to lower the competition for resources,
considering that inputs will always exist.
g Species and sites where this applies are small to medium patches of biennials and
perennials that spread by seed. Both threat and effectiveness are relatively high, or one is
very high and the other is 6 to 7.
Containment
4
0 Preventing seed spread to confine an infestation to its current patch size, considering
that certain plant types cannot be controlled by mechanical methods.
Q Species and sites where this applies are small patches of high priority creeping
perennials and large patches of biennials. Both threat and effectiveness are moderate or
one is very high and the other is 4 to 5.
Suppression
0Inflicting some damage on the weed with the goal of lessening the rate of spread
(reducing reproduction), considering that large patches and difficult species cannot be
contained using mechanical methods.
0 Species and sites where this applies are experimental patches of creeping perennials.
Both threat and effectiveness are relatively low or one is very high and the other is 2 to 3.
Mapping
QMap and monitor patches of difficult weeds which do not respond to mechanical
control.
Irk Species and sites where this applies are large patches of creeping perennials or
biennials. Both threat and effectiveness are low. Consider upgrading the tier to
"suppression" if necessary.
Monitoring
QObserve and record the presence of additional weeds which are too widespread to
control at this time, and evaluate upgrading patches to higher priority if needed.
0 Species and sites where this applies are patches of regionally widespread weeds.
Effectiveness is very low.
Restoration Objectives
The restoration goal statement is, "To improve habitat conditions by planting native seed in weed
removal locations and by restoring native landscapes at selected project sites." Objectives to
achieve this goal are:
Seeding
0To cover bare ground in disturbed areas with native seed to prevent re-establishment of
weeds.
Restoration
To restore native landscapes at selected project sites.
Stewardship Object tives
The stewardship goal statement is, "To increase the stewardship of the Greenways corridors
through public education, interdepartmental cooperation, and participation in Greenways
Program activities." Objectives to achieve this goal are:
Education
To provide public education regarding the Greenways Program and Habitat
Maintenance in stream corridors.
5
Cooperation
Q To increase interdepartmental cooperation related to the Greenways Program.
Greenways
0 To participate in Greenways Program activities.
Tiered Management Approach
In order to prioritize the weed control efforts and allocate resources appropriately, a tiered
management approach was developed. This involved creating a numerical ranking system as a
function of threat and control effectiveness. The details of this approach are provided below,
along with a flow chart of the procedure.
Program Purpose
To address weeds along the Greenways Corridors
with the intent of improving habitat quality
Goals Control Weeds Plant Natives Increase Stewardship
Weed Management Seeding Objectives Education, Cooperation,
Objectives Objectives at each site Restoration Objectives and Participation
and patch based on Tier* Objectives
Tasks Set of tasks to achieve each objective
Data on completion of tasks for each year at each site
Measures Measures to determine if Objectives have been met
Interim measures based on 2 years of data
Corrective action required to meet Objectives
*Management Tier for Controlling Weeds
Threat Effectiveness
Eradication
Weed menace Patch size Patch size reduction
Habitat affected x Regional infestation = Management Tier Containment
Weed type Suppression
Mapping
Monitoring
Threat
The threat of a particular weed species is a function of the priority or menace level of the weed
(based on species characteristics and the history of infestations in other areas) and the quality and
type of habitat where the patch is located. For the Greenways program, the following values for
threat were assigned to each combination of weed priority and habitat quality based on their
relative importance for control in terms of threat to habitat quality:
6
Threat Weed Priority Habitat Affected
10 High High
7 Medium High
4 Low High
9 High Medium
6 Medium Medium
2 Low Medium
8 High Low
3 Medium Low
1 Low Low
The use of this table is to establish the relative priorities of control efforts based on the threat to
the habitat, since habitat considerations are the driving force for the weed control efforts. The
obvious trend is that the highest priority weeds affecting the highest quality habitat are the top
priorities for control. It is also evident from this table that the highest priority weeds are
important to control even in low habitat quality areas, and that even low priority weeds are
important to control in high quality habitat.
Control Effectiveness
The control effectiveness of mechanical techniques is a function of the individual patch size, the
regional infestation of the weed species, and the effectiveness of the technique on the particular
plant type. Additional information regarding plant types and control techniques is provided in
the Methods section of this report. For the Greenways program, the following values for
effectiveness were assigned to each combination of patch size, infestation, and weed type based
on their relative control effectiveness using mechanical techniques:
Effectiveness Patch Size Infestation Weed Type
10 small small easy
8 medium small easy
5 large small easy
9 small medium easy
6 medium medium easy
4 large medium easy
3 small large easy
3 medium large easy
2 large large easy
9 small small medium
7 medium small medium
4 large small medium
7 small medium medium
5 medium medium medium
2 large medium medium
5 small large medium
4 medium large medium
1 large large medium
7 small small difficult
3 medium small difficult
7
I large small difficult
3 small medium difficult
2 medium medium difficult
0 large medium difficult
2 small large difficult
1 medium large difficult
0 large large difficult
The use of this table is to determine the priorities for control based on the effectiveness of the
techniques on each field situation. With limited resources and to maintain crew morale it is
important to choose the battles carefully in order to maximize improvements in on-the-ground
habitat conditions. The obvious trend is that the highest effectiveness is achieved for small
patches of easily controlled weeds with limited regional distributions. This approach is
analogous to fighting fires by concentrating on eliminating small spot fires while working to
slowly contain the larger conflagrations. It is also evident from this table that effectiveness is
reduced with increasing patch size even for easily controlled weeds. It is often necessary to
change control techniques in response to increasing patch size, for instance from hand pulling to
weed whipping. Large regional infestations indicate a larger problem than the Greenways
program could effectively address. Due to the rapid spread of weeds along corridors such as the
Greenways, re-infestation of regionally common weeds would make control efforts at individual
patches ineffective. Difficult weeds are typically the creeping perennials, which are not
effectively controlled with mechanical techniques due to their underground root network. Only
small patches of these weed types can be attempted with much success.
Management Tier
The combination of threat and effectiveness indicates the level of management required and/or
obtainable through the program efforts. Numerically, this was achieved by multiplying the threat
rating by the effectiveness rating and assigning ranges to represent the different management
tiers.
These management tiers were used to set the objectives, tasks, and measurements of success for
each species and site where weed control activities were performed as shown on the Goal
Worksheet Table. Species and sites where each objective applies are listed, and the
accomplishment of each task was evaluated and recorded on the table at each site for 2002 and
2003. In cases where measurements could be evaluated with two seasons of data, these results
are also recorded on the table. Most measurements of success for weed control are on the
timescale of 5 to 10 years due to the existing seed bank, therefore interim measures were also
established. The measures of success for each weed control case are provided below.
Eradication
Measures of success for eradication are:
• Within 2 years, reduce the density of the target plant (number of plants per square meter)
at the site by 50%
• Within 2 years, reduce the patch size by 50%
• Within 5 years, reduce the density of the target plant at the site by 95%
• Within 5 years, reduce the patch size by 95%
8
Interim measures of success for eradication are:
• Within 1 year, reduce the density of the target plant at the site by 25%
• Within 1 year, reduce the patch size by 25%
If the interim measures are not met, corrective action is trigged.
Patch Size Reduction
Measures of success for patch size reduction are:
• Within 5 years, reduce the density of the target plant at the site by 50%
• Within 5 years, reduce the patch size by 50% (assumes that the seedbank is more
concentrated in the center of the patch)
• Within 10 years, reduce the density of the target plant at the site by 75%
• Within 10 years, reduce the patch size by 75%
Interim measures of success for patch size reduction are:
• Within 1 year, reduce the density of the target plant at the site by 10%
• Within 1 year, reduce the patch size of the target plant at the site by 10%
Containment
Measures of success for containment are:
• Each season for 5 years, patch size does not increase beyond current boundary
• Each season for 5 years, density within the patch does not increase by more than 15% due
to rhizome stimulation
Interim measures of success for containment are:
• Within any one season, patch size does not increase beyond current boundary
• Within any one season, density within the patch does not increase by more than 15% per
year due to rhizome stimulation
Suppression
Measures of success for containment are:
• Each season for 5 years, "experimental" patch size does not increase more than 10% per
year
• Each season for 5 years, density within the "experimental" patch does not increase by
more than 30% per year
Interim measures of success for containment are:
• Within any one season, "experimental" patch size does not increase more than 10% per
year
• Within any one season, density within the "experimental" patch does not increase by
more than 30% per year
9
Cost and Budget
The 2002 Greenways budget dedicated $150,000 (out of the $450,000 budget) toward habitat
maintenance after a recommendation for approval in a joint meeting (in June 2001) by the Water
Resources Advisory Board and the Transportation Advisory Board. The motion made by the
WRAB/TAB included a request for review of this maintenance budget after two years (two
growing seasons). The Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC) recommended that the $150,000
dedication toward habitat maintenance be continued in the 2003 and 2004 budgets.
METHODS
Weed control techniques and species descriptions are provided in detail in the 2002 Greenways
Habitat Maintenance Program Annual report. Instead of repeating that document, this section
provides a summary of the information to facilitate understanding of the program tasks and
results.
Species selection for weed control
Target species included those listed on the state, county, and local noxious weed lists, species of
local concern, and escaped ornamentals that were identified as potential problems as part of the
1999 Greenways Vegetation Assessment. A total of 47 species were identified as targets for
control based on their potential impacts to habitat quality and other Greenways goals. The crew
observed 26 of these species during the 2002 field season, 18 of which were controlled. In 2003,
24 of these species were observed with 18 controlled.
Species Summary:
2002 and 2003
Priority Scientific Name Common Observed in 2002 Observed in 2003 Control
Name 2002 Control 2003 Effort
Effort
1 Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife yes - 1 patch Low yes - same patch, Medium
along SBC 1.1 plus new patches
2 Acosta maculosa Spotted knapweed No none No ( None
3 Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed No none No None
4 Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean yes - at Boulder medium not revisited None
sage Reservoir
5 Tithymalus esula Leafy spurge No none No None
6 Marrubrium vulgare White horehound yes - Boulder Low not revisited None
Reservoir
7 Cylindropyrum Jointed goatgrass No none No None
cylindricum
8 Lgenistifolia Dalmatian toadflax No none yes - new patch Low
var. dalmatica
9 Linaria vulgaris Yellow toadflax yes - 1 patch none yes - same patch, Low
along private plus new patches
fence BC47
10 ~ Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle No none No None
10
11 Potentilla recta Sulfur cinquefoil yes - 1 patch at Low yes - same patch, Medium
FC01 plus new patches
12 Leucanthemum Ox-eye daisy No none No None
vulgare
13 HOrange hawkweed No none No None
aurantiacum
14 Acosta diffusa Diffuse knapweed yes - several very high yes - several very high
reaches reaches
15 Onopordum Scotch thistle yes - several very high yes - several very high
acanthium reaches reaches
16 Carduus nutans Musk thistle yes - several very high yes - several very high
reaches reaches
17 Conium maculatum Poison hemlock yes - several high yes - several High
patches reaches
18 Solanum rostratum Buffalobur yes - Valmont City (high no - eradicated
Park
19 Saponaria officinalis Bouncingbet yes - several high yes - many medium - we gave
reaches reaches up on this one
20 Cardaria latifolia Tall whitetop/ yes - several high yes - many medium - we
Perennial reaches reaches reduced our
pepperweed expectations on this
one
21 Lathyrus latifolius Perennial yes - several high yes - many low - reduced our
sweetpea patches reaches efforts
22 Elaeagnus Russian olive yes - several on hold until yes - several 16 trees removed
angustifolia reaches winter reaches
23 Hesperis matronalis Dame's rocket yes - several medium Yes Medium
reaches
24 Cynoglossum Hounds-tongue yes - several medium Yes Medium
offlcinale reaches
25 Tithymalus Myrtle spurge yes - several medium Yes low - reduced our
myrsinites reaches efforts
26 Dipsacus fullonum Teasel yes - several medium Yes Medium
reaches
27 Breea arvensis Canada thistle yes - several Low Yes Medium
reaches
28 Cardaria drabs Whitetop / Hoary yes - several Low Yes High
cress reaches
29 Lysimachia vulgaris Yellow (or Garden) i.d. uncertain none i.d. uncertain None
loosestrife
30 Vibumum lantana Wayfaring tree i.d. uncertain none i.d. uncertain None
31 Polygonum auberth Silver lace vine; i.d. uncertain none W. uncertain None
China fleece vine
32 Reynourtia japonica Japanese W. uncertain none W. uncertain None
knotweed (or
buckwheat)
33 Brunnera Siberian bugloss i.d. uncertain none i.d. uncertain None
macrophylla
34 Tribulus terrestris Puncturevine i.d_ uncertain none i.d. uncertain None
35 Dipsacus /aciniatus Cutleaf teasel No none No None
36 Myriophyllum Eurasian No none No None
sibiricum watermilfoil
37 Tamanx Tamarisk, Salt No none No None
ramosissima, cedar
Tamarix parviflora
11
38 lsatis tinctoria Dyer's woad No none No None
39 Salvia officinalis Purple ornamental No none No None
salvia
40 Hypericum St. Johnswort No none No None
perforatum
41 Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy No none No None
42 Securigera varia Crown vetch yes - too much to none yes - too much to None
control control
43 Qnisantha tectorum Cheatgrass yes - too much to none yes - too much to None
control control
44 Convolvulus Field bindweed yes - too much to none yes - too much to None
arvensis control control
45 Cichorium intybus Chicory yes - too much to none yes - too much to None
control control
46 Rumex crispus Curly dock yes - too much to none yes - too much to None
control control
47 Bromopsis inermis Smooth brome yes - too much to none yes - too much to None
control control
Site selection for weed control
Sites for weed control were selected based on the following overlapping criteria:
➢ Presence of weeds
➢ Valuable habitat
➢ Publicly owned land
➢ Greenway corridor
➢ Along a multi-use path
Weed control techniques for various plant types
Only mechanical methods (digging, hand pulling, weed whipping, and cutting) were used
because of the proximity to waterways and the City's Integrated Pest Management policy to
avoid pesticide use. The effectiveness of mechanical weed control techniques is highly
dependent upon the type of species. Plants with short taproots and which reproduce only by seed
can typically be pulled or cut prior to seed maturation. The types of plants that cannot be
effectively pulled or cut are the creeping perennials, which are characterized by an extensive root
network. In 2002 and 2003 the Greenways crew spent the majority of their time on species that
respond well to mechanical controls, but also cut and pulled creeping perennials with the goal of
reducing seed spread.
As described above in the Background section, management tiers were established based on
weed threat and control effectiveness. "Cases" were also identified to group closely related
patches within the same tier for comparison between 2002 and 2003. The control methods for
each case type are listed below.
W-ER cases (Eradication)
• Weed whip or hand pull 100% of the target plants prior to seed set to prevent seed spread
(weekly treatments)
12
• In landscape restoration areas hand pull all non-natives, till soil, replant, and install jute
netting
W-RD cases (Patch Size Reduction)
• Early in the season, dig or hand pull 100% of the rosettes including 2/3 of the tap root of
all target biennials
• During mid-season, remove at least 95% of the above ground biomass of all second year
plants
• Late in the season, weed whip or hand pull 100% of the flowering target plants within the
patch to prevent seed spread (3 treatments per season)
W-CN cases (Containment)
• Weed whip or hand pull 100% of the target plants prior to seed set to prevent seed spread
(3 treatments and bagging of seedheads)
W-SP cases (Suppression)
• Use experimental techniques to reduce seed spread of creeping perennials (e.g. cover
patch with black plastic sheeting).
W-MP cases (Mapping)
• Map and monitor patches of difficult weeds which do not respond to mechanical control.
W-MO cases (Monitoring)
• Observe and record the presence of additional weeds which are too widespread to control.
Site selection for restoration of native landscapes
Areas for restoration were identified as part of the Projects and Opportunities of the Greenways
Master Plan (2001). Selected areas included the Basemar project site and the Valmont Fishbowl
site.
Revegetation techniques
Revegetation is an important part of the Habitat Maintenance program to prevent weeds from
becoming re-established in treatment areas and to improve habitat conditions by planting native
species. During the 2002 field season, revegetation was severely limited due to the drought and
the related watering restrictions. In 2003 revegetation efforts included the spreading of native
seed in weed removal locations, the restoration of a native landscape at the Basemar project site,
and the seeding of the Valmont Fish Bowl site. Detailed descriptions of planting techniques are
included in the 2002 Annual Report.
Site Monitoring and Reporting
13
Field monitoring was performed by visually identifying the density of each species present in the
patch, marking the patch location on an aerial photograph, and taking before and after photos
(see the 2002 Annual Report for further details). The patches were then entered into the GIS
system, which calculated the areas and perimeters.
RESULTS
In its first two seasons (summers of 2002 and 2003) the Greenways Habitat Maintenance
program has made measurable improvements in on-the-ground habitat conditions and has
operated well within the established budget. Specific accomplishments include treatment of 79
acres of riparian areas in 2002 and 33 acres in 2003. Species treated both years include: purple
loosestrife, sulfur cinquefoil, diffuse knapweed, Scotch thistle, musk thistle, poison hemlock,
bouncingbet, perennial pepperweed, perennial sweetpea, dame's rocket, hounds-tongue, myrtle
spurge, teasel, Canada thistle, and hoary cress. Species treated in 2002 only were: Mediterranean
sage, white horehound, and buffalobur. Species treated in 2003 only were: dalmatian toadflax,
yellow toadflax, and Russian olive.
The Weed Case Summary table lists each case, species, patch area and patch density for 2002
and 2003. In some cases treatments did not occur in both years, therefore comparisons were not
possible. As shown on the Weed Case Summary table the program achieved several early
successes, including the reduction in patch sizes of noxious weeds at 30 locations, and the
reduction in weed densities at 23 locations. Only two cases were unsuccessful, with patch sizes
and densities increasing from 2002 to 2003. Success was consistently achieved with biennials
such as musk thistle, scotch thistle, and teasel. This matches the expected result, since these
species respond well to mechanical control. Interestingly, some success was also achieved with
two creeping perennials (perennial pepperweed and purple loosestrife), which do not typically
respond to mechanical control. Treatment for other creeping perennials (bouncing bet and sulftir
cinquefoil) was not successful and actually resulted in increased patch sizes and densities.
2002 and 2003 Greenways Weed Data - Case Summary
* means same patch within one case
0 = absent 1 = scattered 2 = light 3=mod 4=heavy (not included in total)
Case Reach Pa Area (ftz) Area (ft) Less Density Density area x density area x density Less
tch 2002 2003 Area? Before Before 2002 2002 Density?
Treatme Treatme
nt nt
Buffalo
Bur
W-ER-1 WC16 na 28,962 Moderate 3 86886 0
W-ER-1 WC16 na 80,484 Moderate 3 241452 0
W-ER-1 WC16 na 23,159 Moderate 3 69477 0
W-ER-1 WC16 na 0 Absent 0 0 0
W-ER-1 WC16 na 0 Absent 0 0 0
W-ER-1 WC16 na 0 Absent 0 0 0
TOTALS 132,605 0 yes 3 0 yes Early Success!!!
General Weed Community
W-ER-2 SC06 10 4,633 Heavy 4 0 18532
NA
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-1 BC02 10 4,000 Light 2 0 8000
W-RD-1 BC02 20 1,700 Light 2 0 3400
14
W-RD-1 BC03 10 10,000 Moderate 3 0 30000
W-RD-1 BC03 20 13,600 Heavy 4 54400
W-RD-1 BC03 na 35,100 Moderate 3 105300 0
W-RD-1 BC03 na 26,600 Moderate 3 79800 0
W-RD-1 BC04 10 1,600 Light 2 0 3200
W-RD-1 BC04 20 3,170 Light 2 0 6340
TOTALS 61,700 34,070 yes 3 3.09186968 no Partial success
Perennial
Sweetpea
W-RD-2 BC04 25 300 Scattere 1 0 300
d
NA
Musk Thistle
W-RD-3 BC04 30 250 Light 2 0 500
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-3 BC17 20 50 Light 2 0 100
W-RD-3 BC32 20 365 Light 2 0 730
NA
Poison Hemlock
W-RD-4 BC04 40 195 Light 2 0 390
W-RD-4 BC06 10 35 Scattere 1 0 35
d
W-RD-4 BC32 10 685 Moderate 3 0 2055
W-RD-4 BC38 10 370 Moderate 3 0 1110
W-RD-4 BC50 80 1,660 Light 2 0 3320
W-RD-4 BC50 na 1,650 Light 2 3300 0
TOTALS 1,650 2,945 no 2 2.346349745 no Unsuccessful
General Weed Community
W-RD-5 BC09 10 17,145 Moderate 3 0 51435
Xerisc
ape
Garde
n
NA
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-6 BC17 10 540 Light 2 0 1080
NA
Houndstongue
W-RD-7 BC37 10 700 Scattere 1 0 700
d
W-RD-7 BC38 80 180 Light 2 0 360
W-RD-7 BC38 90 346 Light 2 0 692
NA
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-8 BC37 20 195 Light 2 0 390
W-RD-8 BC37 na 8,200 Heavy 4 32800 0
Musk Thistle
W-RD-8 BC37 na '8200 Heavy 4 `32800 0
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-8 BC37 20 195 Light 2 0 390
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-8 BC37 30 160 Light 2 0 320
W-RD-8 BC37 40 5,320 Moderate 3 0 15960
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-8 BC37 80 1,273 Light 2 0 2546
15
TOTALS 8,200 7,143 yes 4 2.744785104 yes Early Success!!!
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-9 BC37 10 418 Heavy 4 0 1672
0
W-RD-9 BC37 na 5,900 Heavy 4 23600 0
W-RD-9 BC37 11 91 Moderate 3 0 273
0
W-RD-9 BC38 20 1,405 Heavy 4 0 5620
W-RD-9 BC38 30 738 Moderate 3 0 2214
W-RD-9 BC38 40 529 Moderate 3 0 1587
W-RD-9 BC38 50 161 Moderate 3 0 483
W-RD-9 BC38 70 3,890 Moderate 3 0 11670
W-RD-9 BC38 na 16,900 Light 2 33800 0
W-RD-9 BC38 10 3,195 Moderate 3 0 9585
0
W-RD-9 BC38 na 100,100 Light 2 200200 0
W-RD-9 BC42 20 7,180 Scattere 1 0 7180
d
W-RD-9 BC42 30 4,515 Heavy 4 0 18060
W-RD-9 BC42 na 8,300 Light 2 16600 0
W-RD-9 BC42 10 245 Moderate 3 0 735
0
Musk Thistle
W-RD-9 BC42 10 *245 Moderate 3 0 *735
0
TOTALS 131,200 22,367 yes 2.08993902 2.641346627 no Partial success
Dame's Rocket
W-RD-10 BC38 11 3,379 Moderate 3 0 10137
0
W-RD-10 BC38 na 14,100 Heavy 4 56400 0
TOTALS 14,100 3,379 yes 4 3 yes Early Success!!!
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-11 BC42 60 940 Light 2 0 1880
W-RD-11 BC42 70 8,305 Light 2 0 16610
NA
Myrtle Spurge
W-RD-12 BC42 na 6,000 Heavy 4 24000 0
NA
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-13 BC45 10 3,110 Moderate 3 0 9330
W-RD-13 BC45 30 1,480 Light 2 0 2960
NA
Dame's Rocket
W-RD-14 BC45 20 1,780 Moderate 3 0 5340
NA
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-15 BC49 10 77,660 Scattere 1 0 77660
d
NA
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-16 BC50 10 14,940 L-M 2.5 0 37350
W-RD-16 BC51 30 2,270 Light 2 0 4540
NA
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-17 BC50 na 56,283 Heavy 4 225132 0
16
W-RD-17 BC50 30 23,667 S-L 1.5 0 35500.5
Musk Thistle
W-RD-17 BC50 30 *23667 S-L 1.5 0 *35500.5
TOTALS 56,283 23,667 yes 4 1.5 yes Early Success!!!
Houndstongue
W-RD-18 BC50 40 5,935 S-L 1.5 0 8902.5
W-RD-18 BC50 na 10,538 Heavy 4 42152 0
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-18 BC51 60 1,490 Moderate 3 0 4470
W-RD-18 BC51 na 9,638 Light 2 19276 0
W-RD-18 BC51 na 37,458 Light 2 74916 0
TOTALS 57,634 7,425 yes 2.36568692 1.801010101 yes Early Success!!!
Teasel
W-RD-19 BC50 60 465 Light 2 0 930
W-RD-19 BC51 na 989 Moderate 3 2967 0
W-RD-19 BC51 20 990 S-M 2 0 1980
W-RD-19 BC51 na 2,275 Moderate 3 6825 0
TOTALS 3,264 1,455 yes 3 2 yes Early Success!!!
Musk Thistle
W-RD-20 BC50 na 936 Heavy 4 3744 0
W-RD-20 BC51 50 2,500 Moderate 3 0 7500
TOTALS 936 2,500 no 4 3 yes Partial success
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-21 BC50 90 2,775 S-L 1.5 0 4162.5
W-RD-21 BC50 na 1,064 Heavy 4 4256 0
W-RD-21 BC50 na 28,931 Moderate 3 86793 0
W-RD-21 BC50 na 14,284 Light 2 28568 0
W-RD-21 BC51 70 365 Moderate 3 0 1095
W-RD-21 BC51 80 84,000 S-M 2 0 168000
W-RD-21 BC51 na 103,435 Light 2 206870 0
W-RD-21 BC51 na 2,205 Scattere 1 2205 0
d
W-RD-21 BC51 10 940 Scattere 1 0 940
0 d
W-RD-21 BC51 11 1,300 Light 2 0 2600
0
Musk Thistle
W-RD-21 BC51 80 *84000 Moderate 3 0 *252000
TOTALS 149,919 89,380 yes 2.19246393 1.978043186 yes Early Success!!!
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-22 BC51 80 84,000 S-M 2 0 168000
W-RD-22 BC51 90 525 Heavy 4 0 2100
NA
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-23 BC51 na 5,136 Moderate 3 15408 0
NA
Teasel
W-RD-24 FC01 10 200 Light 2 0 400
W-RD-24 FC01 na 2,194 Heavy 4 8776 0
W-RD-24 FC01 na 774 Heavy 4 3096 0
TOTALS 2,968 200 yes 4 2 yes Early Success!!!
Musk Thistle
W-RD-25 FC01 20 35 Light 2 0 70
Scotch Thistle
17
W-RD-25 FC01 40 120 Scattere 1 0 120
d
W-RD-25 FC01 na 898 Scattere 1 898 0
d
TOTALS 898 155 yes 1 1.225806452 no Partial success
Perennial
Sweetpea
W-RD-26 FC01 50 100 Scattere 1 0 100
d
W-RD-26 FC01 80 100 Scattere 1 0 100
d
NA
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-27 FC01 60 175 Moderate 3 0 525
W-RD-27 FC03 10 4,230 Heavy 4 0 16920
NA
Dames Rocket
W-RD-28 FC01 na 1,331 Moderate 3 3993 0
NA
Teasel
W-RD-29 FC14 10 830 Light 2 0 1660
W-RD-29 FC14 20 450 Light 2 0 900
W-RD-29 FC14 70 435 Light 2 0 870
W-RD-29 FC15 na 28,367 Moderate 3 85101 0
W-RD-29 FC14 na 9,202 Moderate 3 27606 0
TOTALS 37,569 1,715 yes 3 2 yes Early Success!!!
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-30 FC14 30 4,460 S-H 2.5 0 11150
W-RD-30 FC14 40 5,780 S-H 2.5 0 14450
W-RD-30 FC14 50 930 Moderate 3 0 2790
W-RD-30 FC14 60 355 Moderate 3 0 1065
W-RD-30 FC14 80 720 Moderate 3 0 2160
W-RD-30 FC15 20 14,830 Light 2 0 29660
W-RD-30 FC15 30 9,200 S-L 1.5 0 13800
NA
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-31 FC15 50 10,370 Scattere 1 0 10370
d
W-RD-31 FC15 70 550 Light 2 0 1100
W-RD-31 FC15 80 1,840 Light 2 0 3680
NA
Teasel
W-RD-32 FC15 60 590 Light 2 0 1180
W-RD-32 FC15 na 46,702 Moderate 3 140106 0
W-RD-32 FC15 90 435 Light 2 0 870
W-RD-32 FC15 na 21,132 Moderate 3 63396 0
TOTALS 67,834 1,025 yes 3 2 yes Early Success!!!
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-33 FC15 10 9,115 S-M 2 0 18230
0
W-RD-33 FC16 10 155 Light 2 0 310
W-RD-33 FC16 20 1,335 Moderate 3 0 4005
W-RD-33 FC16 30 6,410 Heavy 4 0 25640
W-RD-33 FC16 50 2,176 Heavy 4 0 8704
W-RD-33 FC16 60 1,905 Moderate 3 0 5715
W-RD-33 FC16 na 14,000 Heavy 4 56000 0
18
W-RD-33 FC16 na 46,070 796 Heavy 4 184280 3184
TOTALS 60,070 21,892 yes 4 3.005116024 yes Early Success!!!
Teasel
W-RD-34 FC15 na 24,787 Light 2 49574 0
W-RD-34 FC15 11 7,275 S-L 1.5 0 10912.5
0
W-RD-34 FC16 40 10,833 Heavy 4 0 43332
TOTALS 24,787 18,108 yes 2 2.995609675 no Partial success
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-35 FC16 90 9,860 Heavy 4 0 39440
W-RD-35 FC16 10 6,000 Moderate 3 0 18000
0
NA
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-36 SBC3. na 96,767 Scattere 1 96767 0
1 d
W-RD-36 SBC2. na 70,308 Scattere 1 70308 0
1 d
W-RD-36 SBC2. na 37,615 Heavy 4 150460 0
1
W-RD-36 SBC2. na 37,899 Moderate 3 113697 0
1
NA
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-37 SBC2. na 2,469 Heavy 4 9876 0
1
W-RD-37 SBC1 10 515 Light 2 0 1030
9
TOTALS 2,469 515 yes 4 2 yes Early Success!!!
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-37 SBC1. 10 11,200 Moderate 3 0 33600
1
NA
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-38 SBC1. 20 1,740 Moderate 3 0 5220
1
W-RD-38 SBC1. na 24,607 Moderate 3 73821 0
1
TOTALS 24,607 1,740 yes 3 3 same Early Success!!!
Teasel
W-RD-39 SBC1. 30 282 Light 2 0 564
1
NA
General Weed Community
W-RD-40 GC04 20 40,020 Moderate 3 0 120060
NA
General Weed Community
W-RD-41 GC05 10 63,425 Moderate 3 0 190275
NA
Teasel
W-RD-42 GC06 10 6,975 Light 2 0 13950
W-RD-42 GC07 10 1,692 Heavy 4 0 6768
W-RD-42 GC09 20 3,229 Heavy 4 0 12916
NA
19
General Weed Community
W-RD-43 GC07 20 84,676 Scattere 1 0 84676
d
NA
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-44 GC08 na 140009 Moderate 3 420027 0
W-RD-44 GCO8 na 48,713 Heavy 4 194852 0
NA
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-45 GC09 10 7,420 L-M 2.5 0 18550
W-RD-45 GC09 na 25,938 Heavy 4 103752 0
TOTALS 25,938 7,420 yes 4 2.5 yes Early Success!!!
Teasel
W-RD-46 WC15 na 75,619 Heavy 4 302476 0
NA
General Weed Community
W-RD-47 WC15 10 33,526 M-H 3.5 0 117341
W-RD-47 WC15 na 23,139 Moderate 3 69417 0
TOTALS 23,139 33,526 yes 3 3.5 no Partial Success
General Weed Community
W-RD-48 WC16 10 864 Heavy 4 0 3456
W-RD-48 WC16 na 864 Heavy 4 3456 0
TOTALS 864 864 same 4 4 same No
Change
General Weed Community
W-RD-49 WC16 20 4,813 Moderate 3 0 14439
W-RD-49 WC16 na 28,692 Heavy 4 114768 0
TOTALS 28,692 4,813 yes 4 3 yes Early Success!!!
General Weed Community
W-RD-50 WC16 30 550 Heavy 4 0 2200
W-RD-50 WC16 na 550 Heavy 4 2200 0
TOTALS 550 550 same 4 4 same No
change
General Weed Community
W-RD-51 WC16 40 25,797 Moderate 3 0 77391
W-RD-51 WC16 na 25,797 Heavy 4 103188 0
TOTALS 25,797 25,797 same 4 3 yes Early Success!!!
General Weed Community
W-RD-52 WC16 45 23,208 L-M 2.5 0 58020
W-RD-52 WC16 na 80,484 Heavy 4 321936 0
TOTALS 80,484 23,208 yes 4 2.5 yes Early Success!!!
General Weed Community
W-RD-53 WC16 50 8,413 L-M 2.5 0 21032.5
W-RD-53 WC16 na 23,159 Moderate 3 69477 0
TOTALS 23,159 8,413 yes 3 2.5 yes Early Success!!!
Scotch Thistle
W-RD-54 WC16 na 23,159 Moderate 3 69477 0
W-RD-54 WC16 60 6,060 Light 2 0 12120
TOTALS 23,159 6,060 yes 3 2 yes Early Success!!!
20
Poison Hemlock
W-RD-55 SC16 10 114 Scattere 1 0 114
d
W-RD-55 SC16 20 255 Light 2 0 510
W-RD-55 SC18 10 1,110 Light 2 0 2220
NA
Myrtle spurge
W-RD-56 BCC1 na 11,652 Light 2 23304 0
1
W-RD-56 BCC2 na 2,001 Heavy 4 8004 0
2
W-RD-56 BCC2 na 9,026 Heavy 4 36104 0
2
W-RD-56 BCC2 na 850 Heavy 4 3400 0
2
NA
Poison Hemlock
W-RD-57 BCC2 na 3,794 Heavy 4 15176 0
2
W-RD-57 BCC2 20 261 Scattere 1 0 261
7 d
TOTALS 3,794 261 yes 4 1 yes Early Success!!!
Teasel
W-RD-58 BCC2 10 325 Scattere 1 0 325
7 d
NA
Poison Hemlock
W-RD-59 BCC2 10 174 Light 2 0 348
8
W-RD-59 BCC2 na 6,938 Heavy 4 27752 0
8
TOTALS 6,938 174 yes 4 2 yes Early Success!!!
Russian Olive
W-RD-60 BCC3 10 46,137 Scattere 1 0 46137
2 d
NA
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-61 BVR na **3900000 Scattere 1 **3900000 0 (group event - not included in total)
d
NA
Mediteranean
Sage
W-RD-62 Res na **449135 Heavy 4 **1796540 0 (group event - not included in total)
White horehound
W-RD-62 Res na *449135 Heavy 4 *1796540 0
Diffuse Knapweed
W-RD-62 Res na *449135 Moderate 3 *137405 0
Teasel
W-RD-62 Res na **147266 Moderate 3 **441798 0
NA
Bouncing Bet
W-SP-1 BC06 20 8,000 Heavy 4 0 32000
W-SP-1 BC06 na 22,000 Moderate 3 66000 0
TOTALS 22,000 8,000 yes 3 4 no Partial success
Bouncing Bet
W-SP-2 BC09 10 17,145 Moderate 3 0 51435
21
Xerisc
ape
Garde
n
W-SP-2 BC09 8,900 Heavy 4 35600 0
W-SP-2 BC09 na 10,113 Heavy 4 40452 0
W-SP-2 BC12 61,000 Scattere 1 61000 0
d
W-SP-2 BC37 na 8,100 Scattere 1 8100 0
d
W-SP-2 BC38 na 30,500 Scattere 1 30500 0
d
W-SP-2 BC38 na 100,100 Moderate 3 300300 0
W-SP-2 BC42 na 8,200 Moderate 3 24600 0
TOTALS 226,913 17,145 yes 2.20592033 3 no Partial success
Bouncing Bet
W-SP-3 FC01 na 4,262 Light 2 8524 0
W-SP-3 FC01 na 896 Light 2 1792 0
W-SP-3 FC11 na 13,409 Heavy 4 53636 0
W-SP-3 FC14 na 28,367 Moderate 3 85101 0
W-SP-3 FC15 na 9,202 Moderate 3 27606 0
W-SP-3 FC15 na 46,702 Moderate 3 140106 0
W-SP-3 FC15 na 21,132 Moderate 3 63396 0
W-SP-3 FC15 na 24,787 Moderate 3 74361 0
NA
Bouncing Bet
W-SP-4 WC09 na 31,861 Heavy 4 127444 0
W-SP-4 WC15 na 29,752 Heavy 4 119008 0
NA
Dalmatian
Toadflax
W-CN-1 BC06 30 300 Moderate 3 0 900
W-CN-1 BC37 90 420 Light 2 0 840
W-CN-1 BC37 95 320 Moderate 3 0 960
NA
Canada Thistle
W-CN-2 BC34 10 17,835 Light- 2.5 0 44587.5
Moderate
NA
Perennial
Pepperweed
W-CN-3 BC34 20 4,300 Heavy 4 0 17200
W-CN-3 BC34 na 4,600 Heavy 4 18400 0
W-CN-3 BC34 30 615 Heavy 4 0 2460
W-CN-3 BC34 na 2,300 Heavy 4 9200 0
TOTALS 6,900 4,915 yes 4 4 same Partial success
Hoary Cress
W-CN-4 BC37 50 105 Heavy 4 0 420
W-CN-4 BC37 60 185 Heavy 4 0 740
W-CN-4 BC37 70 435 Heavy 4 0 1740
NA
Perennial
Pepperweed
W-CN-5 BC38 60 112 Moderate 3 0 336
W-CN-5 BC42 10 89 Moderate 3 0 267
W-CN-5 BC42 40 365 Moderate 3 0 1095
W-CN-5 BC42 50 275 Moderate 3 0 825
22
NA
Perennial
Pepperweed
W-CN-6 BC50 70 1,795 Moderate 3 0 5385
W-CN-6 BC50 na 1,263 Heavy 4 5052 0
W-CN-6 BC50 20 1,709 Heavy 4 0 6836
W-CN-6 BC50 50 9,105 Heavy 4 0 36420
W-CN-6 BC50 na 9,750 Heavy 4 39000 0
W-CN-6 BC50 na 7,012 Heavy 4 28048 0
W-CN-6 BC50 10 320 Moderate 3 0 960
0
W-CN-6 BC51 10 310 Moderate 3 0 930
W-CN-6 BC51 na 3,728 Heavy 4 14912 0
W-CN-6 BC51 40 500 Heavy 4 0 2000
W-CN-6 BC51 na 596 Heavy 4 2384 0
TOTALS 22,349 13,739 yes 4 3.82349516 yes Early Success!!!
Canada Thistle
W-CN-7 BC50 30 23,667 S-L 1.5 0 35500.5
NA
Sulfur Cinquefoil
W-CN-8 FC01 30 3,600 S-M 2 0 7200
W-CN-8 FC01 na 4,180 Scattere 1 4180 0
d
W-CN-8 FC14 30 4,460 S-H 2.5 0 11150
W-CN-8 FC14 40 5,780 S-H 2.5 0 14450
W-CN-8 FC15 30 9,200 S-H 2.5 0 23000
TOTALS 4,180 23,040 no 1 2.421875 no Unsuccessful
Yellow Toadflax
W-CN-9 FC01 70 17 Light 2 0 34
NA
Perennial
Pepperweed
W-CN-10 FC11 10 114 Moderate 3 0 342
W-CN-10 FC15 10 255 Scattere 1 0 255
d
W-CN-10 FC15 40 185 Scattere 1 0 185
d
NA
Purple Loosestrife
W-CN-11 FC16 70 95 Light 2 0 190
W-CN-11 FC16 80 1,260 Light 2 0 2520
W-CN-11 FC16 10 1,176 Moderate 3 0 3528
NA
Purple Loosestrife
W-CN-12 SBC2. 10 20 Light 2 0 40
1
NA
Perennial
Pepperweed
W-CN-13 SBC1. 40 200 Light 2 0 400
1
Canada Thistle
W-CN-13 SBC1. 40 '200 Light 2 0 '400
1
NA
23
Purple Loosestrife
W-CN-14 SBC1. 50 1,200 Light 2 0 2400
1
W-CN-14 SBC1. na 7,198 Moderate 3 21594 0
1
TOTALS 7,198 1,200 yes 3 2 yes Early SuccessM
Hoary Cress
W-CN-15 GC04 10 530 Heavy 4 0 2120
NA
Perennial
Pepperweed
W-CN-16 GC08 na 140,009 Moderate 3 420027 0
W-CN-16 GC09 na 48,713 Heavy 4 194852 0
W-CN-16 GC09 na 25,938 Heavy 4 103752 0
NA
3,444,240 1,429,398
ACRES: 79 33
The Goal Worksheet Tables below provide the details for each goal and objective, including a
description of each case, the tasks to address the objective, measures and interim measures of
success, evaluation of the measures, and recommendations.
Objective W-ER GOAL WORKSHEET TABLE
Use mechanical methods to eradicate target species if threat and effectiveness are both high (8 to 10)
Species and sites where this applies are only newly seeded areas with annual weeds.
Tasks Interim Measures Evaluation Recommendations
Weed whip or hand pull 100% of Within 1 year, reduce the objective has been met
the target plants prior to seed density of the target plant at the
set to prevent seed spread site by 25%
(weekly treatments)
Hand pull all non-natives, till soil, Within 1 year, reduce the patch objective is on track to being met
replant, and install jute netting size by 25%
corrective action is needed
WONDERLAND CREEK
Buffalo bur at Valmont City Park (WC16)
W-ER-1 2002 yes
2003 yes yes met
General weeds at Basemar
W-ER-2 2002 not treated
2003 yes yes on track
Objective W-RD Use mechanical methods to prevent seed spread and reduce the patch size of target species if both threat and effectivenesE
are relatively high, or if one is very high and the other is 6 to 7.
Species and sites where this applies are small to medium patches of biennials and perennials that spread by seed.
Tasks Interim Measures Evaluation
Early in the season, dig or hand Within 1 year, reduce the objective has been met
pull 100% of the rosettes density of the target plant at the
including 2/3 of the tap root of all site by 10%
target biennials within 20 meters
of the bike path or creek
or During mid-season, remove at Within 1 year, reduce the patch objective is on track to being met
least 95% of the above ground size of the target plant at the site
biomass of all second year by 10%
plants within 20 meters of the
bike path or creek bank
24
or Late in the season, weed whip or hand pull 100% of the flowering corrective action is needed
target plants within the patch to prevent seed spread (may require
3 treatments per season)
BOULDER
CREEK
Diffuse knapweed at Kayak Course
W-RD-1 2002 yes visit site earlier in season or do
more site visits
2003 yes partially (size reduced, partially on track improve mapping accuracy
density increased)
Scattered perennial sweet pea along Boulder
Creek path
W-RD-2 2002 none recorded
2003 too soon to tell
Scattered scotch and musk thistle along Boulder Creek path - 2003 only
W-RD-3 2002 not treated not treated
2003 yes too soon to tell
Scattered poison hemlock along Boulder Creek
path
W-RD-4 2002 yes visit site earlier in season or do
more site visits
2003 yes no (size increased, density not on track improve mapping accuracy
increased)
General weed community at Xeriscape Garden
W-RD-5 2002 not treated not treated
2003 yes too soon to tell
Scattered diffuse knapweed along Boulder
Creek path
W-RD-6 2002 not recorded notrecorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
Hound's tongue at CU Greenhouse/Research
Park
W-RD-7 2002 not observed not observed
2003 yes too soon to tell
Thistles and knapweed at CU Greenhouse
W-RD-8 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Scotch thistle at CU Research Park
W-RD-9 2002 yes
2003 yes partially (size reduced, partially on track
density increased)
Dame's rocket at CU Research Park
W-RD-10 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Diffuse knapweed at CU Research Park
W-RD-11 2002 not recorded not recorded patches treated in prior years
should be re-evaluated and
mapped even if they are not
treated again
2003 yes too soon to tell
Myrtle spurge along paths
W-RD-12 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 not treated not recorded
Scotch thistle west of Foothills
W-RD-13 2002 not observed not observed
2003 yes too soon to tell
Dame's rocket west of Foothills
W-RD-14 2002 not treated not treated
2003 yes too soon to tell
Scotch thistle south of Pearl
W-RD-15 2002 not treated not treated
2003 yes too soon to tell
Diffuse knapweed at logs
W-RD-16 2002 not observed not observed
2003 yes too soon to tell
Scotch and musk thistle at logs
W-RD-17 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Hound's tongue at Cottonwood Pond
W-RD-18 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Teasel at Cottonwood Pond
25
W-RD-19 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Musk thistle at Cottonwood Pond
W-RD-20 2002 yes
2003 yes partially (size increased, partially on track improve mapping accuracy
density reduced)
Scotch and musk thistle at Pearl and 55th
W-RD-21 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track improve mapping accuracy
Diffuse knapweed at Pearl and 55th
W-RD-22 2002 not recorded not recorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
Scotch thistle north of Valmont
W-RD-23 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 not recorded not recorded patches treated in prior years
should be re-evaluated and
mapped even if they are not
treated again
FOURMILE CANYON CREEK
Scattered teasel along Fourmile
W-RD-24 2002 yes
2003 yes partially (size reduced, partially on track
density increased)
Musk and scotch thistle west of Broadway
W-RD-25 2002 yes
2003 yes partially (size reduced, partially on track
density increased)
Scattered perennial sweet pea along Fourmile
W-RD-26 2002 not observed not observed
2003 yes too soon to tell
Diffuse knapweed at Broadway
W-RD-27 2002 not observed not observed
2003 yes too soon to tell
Dames rocket along Fourmile
W-RD-28 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 not recorded not recorded
Teasel east of
28th
W-RD-29 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Diffuse knapweed 28th to 30th
W-RD-30 2002 not recorded not recorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
Diffuse knapweed east of 30th
W-RD-31 2002 not recorded notrecorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
Teasel east of
30th
W-RD-32 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Diffuse knapweed at Pleasant View
W-RD-33 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Teasel at Pleasant View
W-RD-34 2002 yes
2003 yes partially (size reduced, partially on track
density increased)
Diffuse knapweed at 47th
W-RD-35 2002 not recorded not recorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
SOUTH BOULDER CREEK
Scotch thistle along S. Boulder Creek - sites with 2002 data only
W-RD-36 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 not recorded not recorded
Diffuse knapweed along S. Boulder Creek - patches don't match
W-RD-37 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track improve mapping accuracy
Scotch thistle along S. Boulder Creek at railroad
track
W-RD-38 2002 yes
26
2003 yes partially (size reduced, partially on track reduce density by performing
density same) more treatments each season
Teasel along S. Boulder Creek - sites with 2003
data only
W-RD-39 2002 not recorded not recorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
GOOSE CREEK
General weed community along Goose Creek at project site - east of Folsom
W-RD-40 2002 project site not completed project site not completed
2003 yes too soon to tell
General weed community along Goose Creek at project site -west of 28th
W-RD-41 2002 project site not completed project site not completed
2003 yes too soon to tell
Teasel along Goose Creek - 2003 data only
W-RD-42 2002 not recorded notrecorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
General weed community along Goose Creek at project site - west of 30th
W-RD-43 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 not treated not recorded
Diffuse knapweed along Goose Creek - 2002
data only
W-RD-44 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 not recorded notrecorded
Diffuse knapweed along Goose Creek at
Foothills
W-RD-45 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
WONDERLAND CREEK
Teasel along Wonderland Creek at Kings Ridge
W-RD-46 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 not recorded not recorded
General weed community at Wonderland Fish
Bowl
W-RD-47 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 yes no - but was reseeded no - but was reseeded
East rock bed at Valmont City Park
W-RD-48 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 yes no change - even with chems no change - even with chems
General weeds east side of path at Valmont City
Park
W-RD-49 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
West rock bed at Valmont City Park
W-RD-50 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 yes no change - even with chems no change - even with chems
General weeds west side of path at Valmont City
Park
W-RD-51 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
General weeds near ped bridge at Valmont City
Park
W-RD-52 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
General weeds near Goose Creek at Valmont
City Park
W-RD-53 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Scotch thistle near Goose Creek at Valmont City
Park
W-RD-54 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
SKUNK CREEK
Poison hemlock along Skunk Creek - 2003 data
only
W-RD-55 2002 not recorded not recorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
BEAR CANYON CREEK
27
Myrtle spurge along Bear Creek - 2002 data only
W-RD-56 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 not recorded not recorded
Poison hemlock along Bear Creek - patches
don't match
W-RD-57 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 yes patches don't match
Teasel along Bear Creek - 2003 data only
W-RD-58 2002 not recorded not recorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
Poison hemlock along Bear Creek south of
Colorado
W-RD-59 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Russian olives along Bear Creek at Foothills
W-RD-60 2002 not treated not treated
2003 yes - with chain saws too soon to tell
OPEN SPACE AND PARKS
Diffuse knapweed at Boulder Valley Ranch Open
Space
W-RD-61 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 not treated not treated
Med sage, white horehound, diffuse knapweed and teasel at Boulder Reservoir
Park
W-RD-62 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 not treated not treated
Objective W-CN Use mechanical methods to contain target species if both threat and effectiveness are moderate or if one is very high and the other is
Species and sites where this applies are small patches of high priority creeping perennials and large patches of
biennials.
Tasks to meet this objective:
Tasks Interim Measures Evaluation Recommendations
Weed whip or hand pull 100% of Within any one season, patch objective has been met
the target plants prior to seed size does not increase beyond
set to prevent seed spread (may current boundary
require 3 treatments and
bagging of seedheads)
Within any one season, density objective is on track to being
within the patch does not met
increase by more than 15% per
year due to rhizome stimulation
corrective action is needed
BOULDER
CREEK
Small patches of Dalmation toadflax
W-CN-1 2002 none observed none observed
2003 yes too soon to tell new patches are being
observed, therefore increased
monitoring is advised
Canada thistle at Scott Carpenter Park
W-CN-2 2002 not treated not treated
2003 yes too soon to tell
Perennial pepperweed at Scoff Carpenter Park
W-CN-3 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track improve mapping accuracy
Hoary cress at CU track
W-CN-4 2002 not treated not treated
2033 yes too soon to tell
Scattered perennial pepperweed along Boulder
Creek path
W-CN-5 2002 not treated not treated
2003 yes too soon to tell
Perennial pepperweed at Cottonwood Pond
W-CN-6 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Canada thistle at Cottonwood Pond
W-CN-7 2002 not treated not treated
2003 yes too soon to tell
28
FOURMILE CANYON CREEK
Sulfur cinquefoil along Fourmile
W-CN-8 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Yellow toadflax along Fourmile
W-CN-9 2002 not observed not observed
2003 yes too soon to tell
Scattered perennial pepperweed along Fourmile
W-CN-10 2002 not recorded not recorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
Purple loosestrife along Fourmile
W-CN-11 2002 not observed not observed
2003 yes too soon to tell
Purple loosestrife along South Boulder Creek - 2003 patches only
W-CN-12 2002 not observed not observed
2003 yes too soon to tell
Perennial pepperweed and Canada thistle along South Boulder Creek at
railroad tracks
W-CN-13 2002 not recorded not recorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
Purple loosestrife along South Boulder Creek at railroad tracks
W-CN-14 2002 yes
2003 yes yes on track
Hoary cress along Goose Creek
W-CN-15 2002 not recorded not recorded
2003 yes too soon to tell
Perennial pepperweed along Goose Creek east
of 30th
W-CN-16 2002 yes too soon to tell
2003 not recorded not recorded
Objective W-SP Use mechanical methods to suppress target species if both threat and effectiveness are relatively low or if one is very high
and the other is 2 to 3.
Species and sites where this applies are experimental patches of creeping
perennials.
Tasks Interim Measures Evaluation Recommendations
Use experimental techniques to Within any one season, "experimental" patch size does not increase more than 10% per year
reduce seed spread of creeping
perennials.
Within any one season, density within the "experimental" patch does not increase by more than
30% per year
BOULDER
CREEK
Bouncing bet at Settlers Park
W-SP-1 2002 yes - weed whips too soon to tell
2003 partial treatment - weed whips partially (size reduced,. partially on track Increase frequency and extent
density increased) of treatment. Improve mapping
accuracy, including areas not
treated. Consider revising
objective to W-MP.
Bouncing bet along Boulder Creek path
W-SP-2 2002 yes - plastic sheeting and weed too soon to tell
whips
2003 gave up treatment yes on track Improve mapping accuracy,
including areas not treated.
Consider revising objective to
W-M P.
(Note that the treated area at Settlers Park has done worse than the untreated areas along Boulder Creek)
FOURMILE CANYON CREEK
Bouncing bet along Fourmile Creek path
W-SP-3 2002 yes - weed whips too soon to tell
2003 not treated not recorded Improve mapping accuracy,
including areas not treated.
29
Consider revising objective to
W-M P.
Bouncing bet along Wonderland Creek path
W-SP4 2002 yes - weed whips too soon to tell
2003 not treated not recorded Improve mapping accuracy,
including areas not treated.
Consider revising objective to
W-M P.
Restoration Objectives
Goal Worksheet - Seeding and Restoration
RESULTS:
Specific Objectives to Achieve Goal N:
Cover bare ground in
disturbed areas with native
seed to prevent re-
Objective N-S establishment of weeds.
Sites where this applies are areas disturbed by weeding activities.
Tasks to meet this objective:
Task N-S-t1 Task N-S-t2 Task N-S-t3 Task N-S-t4
Reseed disturbed areas with Irrigate seeded areas Continue to remove weeds Prevent disturbance to the
native seed at a rate of 1000 adequately for germination from reseeded area reseeded area by
seeds per square foot and establishment trampling or mowing
Hoary cress area along Boulder Creek
N-S-1 2002
2003 yes yes yes no
Cottonwood Pond log area
N-S-2 2002 yes no yes no
2003
Measures to determine if the objective has been met:
Measure N-S-m1 Measure N-S-m2 Measure N-S-m3
Within 1 growing season, Within 2 growing seasons, Within 2 growing seasons,
achieve germination and achieve establishment of at no more than 25% of the
establishment of at least least 20% of the planted ground in the reseeded area
10% of the planted seeds in seeds in non-irrigated areas is to be covered with weed
non-irrigated areas or 75% grass to 25% bare species (threshold for
(measured visually as 10% ground in irrigated areas weeding)
grass coverage to 90% bare
ground), or 50% of the
planted grass in irrigated
area (50% grass, 50% bare
ground)
Hoary cress area along Boulder Creek
N-S-1 2002
none established after 1
2003 no season too soon to tell
Cottonwood Pond log area
none established after 1
N-S-2 2002 no season
2003 no yes
Measures to determine if corrective action is needed:
Measure N-S-cal Measure N-S-ca2 Measure N-S-ca3
30
Within 1 growing season
Within 1 growing season Within 1 growing season the more than 25% of the
less than 10% of the seeds seeded area has been ground in the reseeded area
have germinated or become impacted by disturbance or is covered with weed
established mowing species
Hoary cress area along Boulder Creek
N-S-1 2002 not treated or seeded not treated or seeded not treated or seeded
2003 yes yes no
Cottonwood Pond log area
N-S-2 2002 yes no no
2003 not seeded not seeded no
Evaluation of Objective N-S
The above measurements indicate that the objective:
Has been met Is on track to being met The following corrective The following revised
action is needed: management approach
is needed:
Hoary cress area along Boulder Creek
reseed, irrigate adequately,
N-S-1 no no sign and fence area
Cottonwood Pond log area
reseed, irrigate adequately,
N-S-2 no no sign and fence area
To restore native landscapes
Objective N-R at selected project sites
Sites where this applies are restoration project areas.
Tasks to meet this objective:
Task N-R-t1 Task N-R-t2 Task N-R-t3 Task N-R-t4
Irrigate planted areas
Regrade to correct site adequately for establishment Prevent disturbance to the
conditions, enhance success Install live plants and trees replanted area by
of natives, or for water and necessary erosion trampling or mowing;
quality control fabric continue to remove weeds
Wonderland Channel at Valmont City Park
N-R-1 2002 yes yes yes yes
2003 yes yes
Skunk Creek water quality BMPs and streambank at Basemar
N-R-2 2002
2003 yes yes yes yes
Wonderland Creek Fish Bowl
N-R-3 2002 yes
2003 yes - seed only no no
Measures to determine if the objective has been met:
Measure N-R-m1 Measure N-R-m2 Measure N-R-m3 Measure N-R-m4
After one growing season, After 2 growing seasons, After 2 growing seasons, no Within 5 growing seasons,
achieve survival of at least achieve survival of at least more than 25% of the achieve reproduction and
90% of all live plantings 80% of live plantings ground in the replanted area growth of planted species
is to be covered with weed
species
Wonderland Channel at Valmont City Park
N-R-1 2002 yes
2003 yes yes too soon to tell
Skunk Creek water quality BMPs and streambank at Basemar
N-R-2 2002
2003 yes too soon to tell too soon to tell too soon to tell
31
Wonderland Creek Fish Bowl
N-R-3 2002
2003 just seeded too soon to tell too soon to tell too soon to tell
Interim measures to determine if the objective is on track to being met:
Interim measure N-R-iml Interim measure N-R-im2 Interim measure N-R-im3
Within 1 growing season at Within 1 growing season the Within 1 growing season
least 90% of the plants have revegetation area has not less than 25% of the ground
survived been impacted by in the revegetation area is
disturbance or mowing covered with weed species
Wonderland Channel at Valmont City Park
N-R-1 2002 yes yes yes
2003
Skunk Creek water quality BMPs and streambank at Basemar
N-R-2 2002
2003 yes yes yes
Wonderland Creek Fish Bowl
N-R-3 2002
2003 just seeded yes yes
Measures to determine if corrective action is needed:
Measure N-R-cal Measure N-R-cat Measure N-R-ca3
Within 1 growing season Within 1 growing season the Within 1 growing season
less than 90% of the plants revegetation area has been more than 25% of the
have survived impacted by disturbance or ground in the revegetation
mowing area is covered with weed
species
Wonderland Channel at Valmont City Park
N-R-1 2002 no no no
2003
Skunk Creek water quality BMPs and streambank at Basemar
N-R-2 2002
2003 no no no
Wonderland Creek Fish Bowl
N-R-3 2002
2003 just seeded no no
Evaluation of Objective N-R
The above measurements indicate that the objective:
Has been met Is on track to being met The following corrective The following revised
action is needed: management approach
is needed:
Wonderland Channel at Valmont City Park
N-R-1 yes
Skunk Creek water quality BMPs and streambank at Basemar
N-R-2 yes
Wonderland Creek Fish Bowl
N-R-3 too soon to tell
Goal Worksheet - Stewardship
RESULTS:
Specific Objectives to Achieve Goal S:
32
Objective S-ED To provide public education
regarding the Greenways
Program and Habitat
Maintenance in stream corridors
Tasks to meet this objective:
Task S-ED-1 Task S-ED-1
Answer questions and provide Develop a Homeowner Education
information related to the Program
Greenways program, the bike
path system, and environmental
issues
2002 yes in progress
2003 yes in progress
Measures to determine if the objective has been met:
Measure S-ED-m1 Measure S-ED-m2 Measure S-ED-m3
Engage in positive verbal Receive compliments from Implement the
interactions with Greenways trail Greenways trail users on average Homeowner Education
users on average of 2-3 times per 2-3 times per week; zero Program by 2005
week complaints
2002 yes yes in progress
2003 yes yes in progress
Measures to determine if corrective action is needed:
Measure S-ED-cal Measure S-ED-ca2 Measure S-ED-ca3
Engage in negative verbal Receive complaints from Fail to implement the
interactions with Greenways trail Greenways trail users Homeowner Education
users Program by 2005
2002 no no too soon to tell
2003 no no too soon to tell
Evaluation of Objective S-ED
The above measurements indicate that the objective:
Has been met Is on track to being met The following The following
corrective action is revised
needed: management
approach is
needed:
To increase interdepartmental
cooperation related to the
Objective S-C Greenways Program
Tasks to meet this objective:
Task S-C-t1 Task S-C-t2 Task S-C-t3
Participate on the IPM task force Participate in group trainings and Share equipment and
work sessions with other information with other
departments work groups
2002 yes yes yes
2003 yes yes yes
Measures to determine if the objective has been met:
Measure S-C-m1 Measure S-C-m2 Measure S-C-m3
33
Attend at least 90% of scheduled Participate in at least 1 group Provide the Mule cart to
work hour and 50% of non-work training and 2 work sessions with Parks for use as a plow
hour staff debriefs and 90% of all other departments per season during the winter; share
IPM task force evening meetings (xeriscape, prairie dogs, etc.) chain saws, trucks,
storage space
2002 yes yes yes
2003 yes yes yes
Evaluation of Objective S-C
The above measurements indicate that the objective:
Has been met Is on track to being met The following The following
corrective action is revised
needed: management
approach is
needed:
yes
Objective S- Participate in Greenways
GW Program activities
Tasks to meet this objective:
Task S-GW-t1 Task S-GW-t2 Task S-GW-t3
Participate in the B-360 Bike Ride Response to Utilities and Assist in the office as
Greenways staff for field necessary
inspections and assistance
2002 yes yes yes
2003 yes yes yes
Measures to determine if the objective has been met:
Measure S-GW-m1 Measure S-GW-m2 Measure S-GW-m3
Provide assistance in
Mark the route of the B-360, work preparing the annual
the ride, take down the signs after Inspect and assist with weed reports and other
the ride removal at specific locations projects
2002 yes yes yes
2003 yes yes yes
The above measurements indicate that the objective:
Has been met Is on track to being met The following The following
corrective action is revised
needed: management
approach is
needed:
yes
Costs
The Habitat Maintenance program has proven to be highly cost effective based on the results of
the first two seasons. The 2002-2007 Greenways CIP included $150,000 per year for the habitat
maintenance effort. In 2002 approximately $76,000 was spent on salaries, materials, equipment,
and training to implement the habitat maintenance program. In 2003, the cost of the program
was slightly less. The actual costs have been lower than the budgeted amount due to a reduced
crew size (3 full time interns instead of 5), the use of a utility cart instead of pick-up trucks, no
use of chemicals, and in-house preparation of the weed manual and annual reports instead of
hiring a consultant. As demonstrated above the weed control, revegetation and stewardship
aspects of the Habitat Maintenance program have been highly successful. Therefore the Habitat
34
Maintenance program is meeting its goals and objectives well within the approved budget
amount.
DISCUSSION
The program has achieved several early successes and is on track to meeting the objectives for
all three goals: weed control, restoration, and stewardship.
Weed Control Objectives
Out of 36 weed cases which were treated both years, 32 resulted in reduced patch size and/or
reduced weed density for a success rate of 89%. The biggest improvements occurred in areas
with medium sized patches of biennial weeds, which are easily controlled using hand techniques.
Bar charts and representative photos are included below to show before and after conditions at
three example case locations: W-RD-9 (Scotch thistle at the CU Research Park), W-RD-18
(Houndstongue and Scotch thistle at the Cottonwood pond log area), and W-CN-14 (Purple
loosestrife along South Boulder Creek at the railroad tracks).
Patch Size Comparison
140,000
120,000
N
100,000 a
80,000 0 -0 w El Area (ft2) 2002
o ~
L 60,000 0, N ■ Area (ft2) 2003
o
a 40,000 0
in
20,000 Z
o a
0
W-RD- W-RD- W-CN-
9 18 14
Case
35
Patch Density Comparison
3.5
3
2.5
0 2 o ave density 2002
1.5 ■ ave density 2003
L
> 1
a
0.5
0
W-RD-9 W-RD- W-CN-
18 14
Case
Case W-RD-9 2002 CU Research Park - before
F 7
lfi~t++d ~Z l r a K 7 f• 1 `~`d~ '11i
I~a~ 4 _ r, t •`s ti4P444~~ ai `.wyr}
y. f a~ AM^a ,y4* yr I ~ 4- I 4 fir;
a `}KA ~K Fr 1Y ~~~a w~ wi r~~d~! ♦ '~3'S ~ ' _ 5+~y x al
1 ~i't'fYr.f~7X~~Y ~►1ii~~~A .'~M1r4J v:., ~.T "y ~ ~A_
Case W-RD-9 2002 CU Research Park - after
c
Al .f~ ~ i .`"t~`•^F' "fir s4.~ . = i~ 5-: ~
+ y : ' may. - ht" y r
~ ra, .r~LC B
36
Case W-RD-18 2002 Cottonwood Logs - after
liS^_:.N r rs svj sY y
Y+`~wL ~ i .ti~A*~lYS ~S, V T ~ . i • I, - ~ .f~ t-[Yil 1
ak D 1~'Mf ~ r"
A t,
Case W-RD-18 2003 Cottonwood Lo_ as - after
JOS*
4._
~-4,
fyk':fir l- ? .
}
37
Case W-CN-14 Purple Loosestrife along South Boulder Creek
Fy
s
~ . la
~4 } v r r ~I ~N •
5~ ttr
{ stir,. 1 f dr s . ;off nn A , x:
it y ~ t t rr~ ~ , ~ a ` 'YF ~ r ,
~.~„JXr~ ~.~~,,':rV'',rR':'~i•,'~r~"u~~~k. ~,%h,r~..:,l.5'i h1~~3:tb~~,.,,.~$ir+f~;,'y°d'J,,.,.
Case W-CN-14 Purple Loosestrife along South Boulder Creek
8-11-03, SBC 1,1, Purple Loosestrife before `
t•`
1 4 ~jrf'b r
} S 4~ t
Y't X tY ~ P
Y ~y r k
r A r ,'AR T~{ Rl i ''fir c2
k.ti~ ' yF e
Lr,
1Yc 1'Y 4 J!RI ~ e 1 94 1 ~I ! + L 6 •1~ ,11rvt \i.
i ~~~111 ~ 1 3} 9 4 1 ' t
l? trim t y 11~ 0:~ dt ~I~ Y I ~y~, t
. c of ` xk!!
Patch sizes at these three example cases were reduced significantly between 2002 and 2003,
while patch densities were reduced in 2 of the 3 example cases. This is evidence that the
mechanical control techniques are improving the site conditions, although mapping protocol and
drought conditions should be kept in consideration when making comparisons between years.
As shown on the Goal Worksheet table in the Results section, weed control objectives are on
track to being met at 24 locations, with 8 additional locations partially on track. Only two cases
were unsuccessful. Several cases were only treated in one year, therefore evaluation of these
cases will be possible after next season. Out of 2 cases within the Eradication objective, one
case has met the measures of success and the other is on track (i.e. the interim measures of
success have been met). Of the 62 cases for Patch Reduction only 28 cases were treated in both
38
2002 and 2003. Of these, 17 cases are on track, 7 cases are partially on track, 2 were the same,
and 2 were unsuccessful. Comparisons of the remaining cases will be possible after the next
seasons data is available. All of the Containment cases that were treated in both 2002 and 2003
are on track. Of the 4 Suppression cases, one is on track, one is partially on track, and two were
not treated in both years.
Restoration Objectives
Native Plants - Seeding
Tasks
The major area seeded in 2002 was at the Cottonwood log location near Boulder Creek. Due to
the drought and watering restrictions, natural precipitation was insufficient for establishing the
seed. This area remains bare ground and should be reseeded or restored.
The major area seeded in 2003 was at the hoary cress location along Boulder Creek near the CU
greenhouse. Although watering was not restricted for most of the season, the area was not
adequately irrigated for successful establishment of the seed. In addition, disturbance and
trampling by trail users and mowing by other work groups impacted the success of the seeding
proj ect.
Measures
The measures for seed establishment and plant survival are on the order of one or two growing
seasons, and therefore could be evaluated for the first two years of the Habitat Maintenance
program. As mentioned above, seeded areas along Boulder Creek were unsuccessful due to
inadequate irrigation, trampling by trail users, and mowing.
Interim Measures
Both areas of major seeding along Boulder Creek have failed and require corrective action. The
recommendation for management is to remove all weeds from the areas, reduce soil compaction,
reapply seeds, and provide adequate irrigation to establish the seed. In addition, it is
recommended that the areas be signed and fenced to prevent mowing and disturbance from trail
users.
Restoration of Native Landscapes
Tasks
The Greenways crew performed restoration work at three sites during 2002-2003: Wonderland
Channel at Valmont City Park, the Basemar project site at Skunk Creek east of Broadway, and
the Wonderland Creek Fishbowl north of Valmont. Tasks performed at each site included
regrading to correct site conditions, installation of live plants, trees, and/or seed, installation of
erosion control devices, irrigation and maintenance of plantings, protection from disturbance,
and continued weed removal.
Measures
The Valmont City Park and Basemar restoration projects have met the stated objectives by
achieving high survival rates with low levels of weeds. The Wonderland Creek Fishbowl was
seeded and hydro-mulched at the end of the growing season, therefore it is too soon to evaluate
the success in terms of survival.
39
Interim Measures
As stated above, the measures of success have been achieved for both the Valmont City Park
project and the Basemar restoration project. Due to the timing seeding of the Wonderland Creek
Fishbowl, even the interim measures cannot be evaluated at this time.
Stewardship Objectives
Tasks
The tasks for increasing the stewardship of the Greenways corridors involved public education
and outreach, engaging in positive interactions with trail users, participating on the IPM task
force and interdepartmental activities, sharing equipment and information with other work
groups, assisting with the B360 bike ride, responding to staff and citizen requests for weed
control, and assistance with Greenways office activities.
Measures
All of the above tasks have been completed successfully, with the exception of the Homeowner
Education Program which is still being developed. The targeted date for implementation of the
Homeowner Education Program is 2005, therefore this objective is on track for being met. The
increased interdepartmental cooperation has been particularly important for the Greenways
program. The dedication of the crew to on-the-ground improvements in habitat conditions, and
the renewed focus of the Greenways program on environmental goals has improved relations
with other work groups.
CONCLUSION
The first two years of the Greenways Habitat Maintenance program have been implemented
successfully, with demonstrated improvements in on-the-ground habitat conditions. A tiered
management approach consisting of eradication, patch size reduction, containment, suppression,
mapping, and monitoring was used to determine management objectives based on the threat and
effectiveness of each weed control case. Using this approach, most of the weed control
objectives are on track to being met in areas where treatement occurred in both years.
Revegetation efforts have been successful for landscape restoration projects, but unsuccessful for
seeding. To achieve maximum results it is recommended that the Habitat Maintenance program
continue to focus on weed species which respond well to mechanical techniques and selected
restoration project sites for native landscape enhancement. The stewardship aspects of the
program have been successful, and have improved relations with other departments and work
groups. The program has operated well within the established budget, and is therefore
recommended to be continued as part of the Greenways program.
40