Project Details

Utah Lake and its shores are utilized for sports, recreation, agriculture, and as valuable wetland habitat. According to the WAP this project benefits both Key Species and Habitat of greatest conservation needs (June Sucker and Invasive plant species in shoreline habitat). Utilizing 2006 aerial photos of Utah Lake, it was estimated that there are over 8,000 acres of Phragmites around the lake's 75 mile shoreline. The removal of Phragmites greatly benefits the watershed and wildlife habitat. Phragmites chokes out valuable wetland and continues to intrude on habitat areas of endangered or threatened wildlife species. This invasive vegetation also greatly limits public access around the lake and creates a wall of vegetation which is a clear safety hazard for boaters in emergency situations.  
In addition to the Phragmites found along the shoreline, large numbers of tamarisk and Russian olive are also a problem around the lake. Their removal and establishment of desirable plant species greatly benefits the watershed. Phragmites proliferation has the potential to choke out valuable wetlands found around the lake. 
Phragmites is difficult to eradicate without an aggressive vegetation management program. Phragmites is capable of surviving the harshest conditions including fire, frost, high pH and flood. It is tolerant of low water, storm water discharge, road salts and nutrient pollution. It spreads by rhizomes and forms a dense mat that out competes and eliminates native vegetation and destroys valuable wetlands. It was added to the Utah County list of noxious weeds by the Utah County Commission in 2008. 
Stands of phragmites can grow to over 14 feet tall and create an impenetrable insecticide buffer which allows breeding mosquitos to thrive. Mosquitoes around Utah Lake and the County have tested positive for West Nile Virus. 
Each year when the phragmites dies back and dries out, lake shore residential developments, parks, bridges and other structures face the risk of extreme fire danger. In 2007 the Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands was court ordered to create a 30-foot firebreak as a safety measure to protect the homes in case of a fire. 
The Utah Lake Commission has coordinated the creation of a long-term shoreline restoration program with local municipal governments, Utah County, and applicable state and federal agencies as well as private land owners to remove phragmites and other invasive plant species such as tamarisk and Russian olive from the shoreline of Utah Lake and to restore native vegetation where beneficial. It is a multiple section removal effort which requires yearly dedicated funding to ensure its success.

Provide evidence about the nature of the problem and the need to address it. Identify the significance of the problem using a variety of data sources. For example, if a habitat restoration project is being proposed to benefit greater sage-grouse, describe the existing plant community characteristics that limit habitat value for greater sage-grouse and identify the changes needed for habitat improvement.

This year's efforts will continue monitoring of previous years projects, however, the more aggressive treatment regime which started last year will continue based on the latest research out of Utah State University on Phragmites removal. This research indicates that aggressive treatments on the same area for at least three consecutive years is needed before re-vegetation efforts take place. As such, the area from Saratoga Springs north and east through Lehi, American Fork, Lindon, Orem and south to Provo Bay has been identified as a priority for this aggressive treatment regime and will be treated aerially for the next three years. After the three years, conditions will be assessed and a determination will be made how to proceed with additional reseeding and other re-vegetation projects to restore native and desirable vegetation in this area.
A secondary priority area to the south of Provo Bay is included in the project area as an alternate treatment area if funding can be leveraged and additional work completed.

Provide an overall goal for the project and then provide clear, specific and measurable objectives (outcomes) to be accomplished by the proposed actions. If possible, tie to one or more of the public benefits UWRI is providing.

LOCATION: Justify the proposed location of this project over other areas, include publicly scrutinized planning/recovery documents that list this area as a priority, remote sensing modeling that show this area is a good candidate for restoration, wildlife migration information and other data that help justify this project's location.

TIMING: Justify why this project should be implemented at this time. For example, Is the project area at risk of crossing an ecological or other threshold wherein future restoration would become more difficult, cost prohibitive, or even impossible.

(Management Plans and objectives are named and then numbered in brackets or parenthesis) 
This project will continue the process needed to help several agencies accomplish their goals and objectives. The agencies, the plans and objectives are listed below. The Utah Lake Commission [1,2 (two objectives)] and Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands [3,4 (two objectives] adopted the Utah Lake Master Plan in June 2009. It specifically lists removal of Phragmites around Utah Lake as a high-priority goal. The Master Plan also lists the importance of insect control to benefit public health--a direct result of this removal effort. 
The Utah County Commission (5) has identified Phragmites as a noxious weed at the recommendation of the Utah County Weed Board. This board meets regularly to strategize treatment of numerous types of noxious weeds in Utah County. This is outlined in the 2013 County Resource Assessment. Restoration of the shoreline of Utah Lake is a high priority of this board. The Utah County Mosquito Abatement (6) district has identified Phragmites removal as a priority as well. 
Listed as a noxious weed that needs to be controlled in the 2013 Alpine Conservation District Resource Assessment (7) and the 2013 Timp Nebo Conservation District Resource Assessment (8) 
Removal of Phragmites also helps the Division of Wildlife Resources (9) reclaim valuable habitat for wildlife. It is also a priority of several municipalities, including the City of Saratoga Springs (10) and Provo City (11), Lehi City (12) to have this invasive species controlled as it grows closer to existing homes and planned developments. 
The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (13) has identified Phragmites as one of their top priorities for invasive species control, within the new Invasive Species Mitigation program, which is a partner in this grant. 
The June sucker Recovery Implementation Program (14) has identified Phragmites at Utah Lake to be detrimental to habitat and has been supporting efforts to remove Phragmites around the lake. 
This project lies within the wetland type which is one of the key habitats identified in the WAP. This area supports a variety of wildlife species including many that are listed in the WAP such as fish, Neotropical birds, raptors, and wading and shorebirds. June sucker, an endangered fish endemic to Utah Lake, may also receive benefit from a long-term Phragmites removal effort of which this project is the first step. Other species of concern, as identified by UDWR include, fish such as the Utah sucker, channel catfish, bullhead catfish, panfish including bluegill and crappie, and large-mouth bass; birds, including the Avocet, Stilt, Caspian Tern, Plover, and Long-billed Curlew. 
This project lies within a wetland/lake conservation focus area as determined by the Central Region UPCD team.

List management plans where this project will address an objective or strategy in the plan. Describe how the project area overlaps the objective or strategy in the plan and the relevance of the project to the successful implementation of those plans. It is best to provide this information in a list format with the description immediately following the plan objective or strategy.

If applicable, detail how the proposed project will significantly reduce the risk of fuel loading and/or continuity of hazardous fuels including the use of fire-wise species in re-seeding operations. Describe the value of any features being protected by reducing the risk of fire. Values may include; communities at risk, permanent infrastructure, municipal watersheds, campgrounds, critical wildlife habitat, etc. Include the size of the area where fuels are being reduced and the distance from the feature(s) at risk.

Treating and removing Phragmites allows native wetland vegetation to reestablish, this creates positive impacts to both the water quality and that water quantity in Utah Lake. According to UDWQ, Replacing Phragmites with other native species provides better uptake of nutrient pollution by native vegetation species.  Removal efforts of Phragmites also creates a more complex riparian root system that is better habitat for juvenile fish and other species. 
According to one local study: (http://etgreatsaltlake.weebly.com/), Phragmites consumes more than double the water to that of native wetland vegetation. The restoration of Native vegetation on the lake has the potential to save an estimated 12k Acre/feet of water annually according to the study which estimated the 25,000 acres of Phragmites on the Great Salt Lake was consuming just over 71K acre/feet annually. There are 8,305 acres of mapped Phragmites on Utah Lake. 
Utah Lake is a priority on the current Utah County Resource Assessment Plan created in 2013. It points out that the lake provides water not only to its county residents but also to Salt Lake County. As the third largest freshwater lake in the western United States, Utah Lake contains ~902,400 acre feet of water when full. As such, it is a very important part of the watershed both in quantity and for its quality. This project along with many others are contributing to improving the value of this resource.

Describe how the project has the potential to improve water quality and/or increase water quantity, both over the short and long term. Address run-off, erosion, soil infiltration, and flooding, if applicable.

Description of efforts, both completed and planned, to bring the proposed action into compliance with any and all cultural resource, NEPA, ESA, etc. requirements. If compliance is not required enter "not applicable" and explain why not it is not required.

Following a similar plan that the UDWR has been using and adapting for improved success in northern Utah, we have developed a plan to control and contain phragmites, other invasive plants, and to reestablish desirable vegetation in appropriate locations. The plan involves a three-year aggressive treatment followed by subsequent revegetation work, with a monitoring and management strategy to prevent spread and re-invasion. 
Methods for Treatment: 
Year 1 -- 
1. A contracted helicopter will be used to treat the project area with AquaNeat in late summer. 
2. Contractors will be used to remove and treat stumps with AquaNeat of tamarisk and Russian olive from strategic areas in the Fall/Winter. 
3. Utah County crews will smash or contract the smashing for much of the biomass in the treated area during the winter. 
4. Utah County weed crew will spot treat regrowth of phragmites in the project area with AquaNeat in accessible areas in the spring. 
Year 2 --
1. A contracted helicopter will be used to treat the project area with AquaNeat in late summer. 
2. Tree stumps of tamarisk and Russian olive will be retreated with AquaNeat in summer.
3. Regrowth will be smashed or mowed mechanically during the winter. 
4. Continual monitoring of regrowth and treatment as needed will be done during the year. 
Year 3 --
1. A contracted helicopter will be used to treat the project area with AquaNeat in late summer. 
2. Tree stumps of tamarisk and Russian olive will be retreated with AquaNeat in summer.
3. Regrowth will be smashed/mowed mechanically during the winter. 
4. Continual monitoring of regrowth and treatment as needed will be done during the year. 
4, 5... 
1. Continual maintenance will occur 
2. Spot treatment of any regrowth along the shoreline will continue. 
3. Smashing/mowing will occur if the lake is low enough and is needed.
4. Revegetation of strategic areas are considered based on the public use, need, and expected success rate of the project.

Describe the actions, activities, tasks to be implemented as part of the proposed project; how these activities will be carried out, equipment to be used, when, and by whom.

Describe plans to monitor for project success and achievement of stated objectives. Include details on type of monitoring (vegetation, wildlife, etc.), schedule, assignments and how the results of these monitoring efforts will be reported and/or uploaded to this project page. If needed, upload detailed plans in the "attachments" section.

Utah County
Utah Department of Agriculture and Food - ISM
Utah Lake Commission 
Central Utah Water Conservancy District 
Utah Division of Forestry Fire and State Lands 
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

The Utah Lake Shoreline restoration project has established partnerships with State, County and local governments as well as private land owners to complete annual projects on the shoreline.  The Utah Lake Commission made up of 17 municipal governments and other agencies is the project lead and grant applicant and contributes hard funding for the project. Utah County manages the entire project with both staff and contractors as well as provides in-kind labor and equipment. Utah's Department of Agriculture provides a major source of funding for the project through its Invasive Species Mitigation program.  The Central Utah Water Conservancy District provides in-kind funding for equipment. Utah Division of Forestry Fire and State Lands provides project funding as well as permitting for lakeshore access. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources provides habitat feedback and information on best practices for making these projects successful as well as being a WRI application partner during the planning phase of the upcoming projects.

List any and all partners (agencies, organizations, NGO's, private landowners) that support the proposal and/or have been contacted and included in the planning and design of the proposed project. Describe efforts to gather input and include these agencies, landowners, permitees, sportsman groups, researchers, etc. that may be interested/affected by the proposed project. Partners do not have to provide funding or in-kind services to a project to be listed.

Detail future methods or techniques (including administrative actions) that will be implemented to help in accomplishing the stated objectives and to insure the long term success/stability of the proposed project. This may include: post-treatment grazing rest and/or management plans/changes, wildlife herd/species management plan changes, ranch plans, conservation easements or other permanent protection plans, resource management plans, forest plans, etc.

Potential for the proposed action to improve quality or quantity of sustainable uses such as grazing, timber harvest, biomass utilization, recreation, etc. Grazing improvements may include actions to improve forage availability and/or distribution of livestock.