Project Details

This funding allows for the purchase of herbicide, contract for aerial application, purchase or rental of equipment, maintenance of equipment and purchase of necessary supplies to control
Phragmites (common reed) and other invasive weeds on Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) wetland areas and State Sovereign Lands managed by Forestry, Fire and State Lands.
Phragmites is the primary target species scheduled for treatment; however other invasive weeds may be controlled during this effort. These include, but are not limited to, Perennial
Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Dyers Woad (Isatis tinctoria), Hoary Cress (Cardaria spp.), thistle species (Cirsium spp.), Poison hemlock (Cicuta maculata), Saltcedar (Tamarix
ramosissima), and Cattail, (Typha spp.). Total eradication of invasive and noxious weeds will never happen due to upstream (wind and water) seed sources that carry into these areas.
Conversion to a more diverse and beneficial group of wetland species is the desired outcome. Because these are public lands managed by the DWR and FFSL that are adjacent to private
agricultural and residential lands, it is imperative to control and contain noxious and invasive weed species. This type of stewardship is not only expected, but also appreciated by neighboring landowners and the user public. Waterfowl hunters and bird watchers have expressed concern that important public wetlands have deteriorated and become limited in value for wetland wildlife due to invasive weeds, primarily Phragmites. These monotypic stands of Phragmites provide little to no value for wildlife. They also prevent viewing of wildlife and provide limited hunting opportunities for the public. The encroachment and continuing spread of this species of invasive weed is further reducing habitat, which was once very productive.

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.

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.

Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) 2015: Goal: "To manage native wildlife species and their habitats to help prevent listings under the Endangered Species Act." Species of Greatest
Conservation Need (SGCN) that have been observed on the areas include : Northern Leopard Frog, American Bittern, Caspian Tern, Snowy Plover, Ferruginous Hawk, Long-billed Curlew,
Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Burrowing Owl, Short-eared Owl, American White Pelican, White-faced Ibis, and Sharp-tailed Grouse (pgs. 14-19). Key aquatic habitats listed in the plan include riverine, emergent, and open water. Priority threats to emergent habitats include: channelization, drought, water allocation policy, Agricultural, municipal, and industrial, water use, and invasive plant species. Threats to open water habitats include: same as above, but also; sediment transport imbalance, roads, improper grazing, diversions, housing and urban areas. Threats to riverine habitats: same as above, but also, presence of dams and inappropriate fire frequencies. .Efforts are in place to secure water rights, protect water sources from exploitation and diversions, and secure appropriate buffers to urban and industrial development. Threats that are directly related to the WAP plan for this project include the control/eradication of invasive plant species.

WAP plan objectives and actions. Objective #1 for Invasive Plant Species -- Non-native Locations/habitats that currently do not have non-native plant problems remain free from the
introduction and spread of invasive non-native plants. Actions to achieve objective: 2.2.2 Survey, inventory established, and new populations of invasive/problematic species. 2.2.3 Eradicate established populations of invasive/problematic species. 2.2.4 Contain established populations of invasive/problematic species. 2.2.9 Avoid establishment of new invasive/problematic species through education, planning, management, and/or regulation. Develop public information and educational programs aimed at encouraging attitudes and behaviors that are positive for wildlife conservation. Objective #2 for Invasive Plant Species -- Non-native Invasive plant dominance/presence is reduced or eliminated in loca0ons or habitats where such an outcome is realistic (ecologically and economically). 2.2.2 Survey and inventory established and new populations of invasive/problematic species. 2.2.3 Eradicate established populations of invasive/problematic species. 2.2.5 Conduct mechanical control of invasive/problematic species. 2.2.6 Conduct biological control of invasive/problematic species. 2.2.7 Conduct chemical control of invasive/problematic species. 2.3.15 Conduct riparian vegetation treatments to restore characteristic riparian vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings. 7.2.1 Support Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative. This project has, and will continue to address these SGCN and threats and promote the actions listed above. It also has and will continue to work collaboratively with several other agencies (Federal and State and County), private landowners, NGO's, and research universities (see partners section of proposal).

Other management plans
1998 Update for North American Waterfowl Management Plan Goal: Restoring and maintaining waterfowl populations pg. 7. Biological foundation linked to waterfowl abundance.
Planning...implementation...evaluation and local scale are measurable and appropriate to the geographic scale. Expanding habitat conservation coordination across landscapes with other
initiatives. Vision: Enhance the capability of landscapes to support waterfowl and other wetland associated species-biologically based planning and ongoing evaluation. pg 13 Seek landscape solutions that benefit waterfowl, pg 14 Duck population objective 62 mil with fall flight of 100 mil maintaining current diversity of species pg 17 US Shorebird Conservation Plan; Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan 2000 Great Salt Lake most important inland shorebird site in North America pg 4. Great Basin Bird Conservation Region, BCR: breeding snowy plover, longbilled curlew, American avocet, black-necked stilt, stop over species: least sandpiper, western sandpiper, marbled godwit, long-billed dowitcher, American avocet, red-necked phalarope, Wilson phalarope Goal: Maintain and enhance diverse landscapes that sustain thriving shorebird populations pg 13. Objective 2; Develop Best Management Practices BPM for the maintenance of shorebird habitats pg 13. Strategy b. work with cooperating agencies and organizations to prepare a prioritized list of habitat maintenance needs annually and provide input into State and federal budget processes. Strategy f. Support the removal the tamarisk, whitetop and other invasive exotic plants from important shorebird sites. Objective 3: Develop a five-year action plan for restoration and enhancement of shorebird habitats in the Intermountain West Region by 2001 pg 14. Strategy b. Integrate restoration and enhancement actions for shorebirds into existing waterfowl and wetland management plans. Strategy c. Conserve and protect the hydrological integrity of ephemeral wetlands through habitat improvements and improved water management techniques. Division of Wildlife Strategic Plan: Conserve, Protect and Enhance Wildlife and Ecosystems; Enhance Recreational Experience; Maximize Productivity and Satisfaction: Goal A, B, C and F. Objectives A-4, B.

FFSL's Great Salt Lake Comprehensive Management Plan calls for control of invasive Phragmites. Table 3.3 Wetlands lists invasive species as a resource issue and targeting and treating invasive Phragmites as an objective for both FFSL and DWR.

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.

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.

This is a multiyear plan and will require a long-term commitment for dollars and manpower to be effective and successful. Phragmites and any noxious weed control effort take multiple years to eradicate or to achieve an acceptable level of containment. The vast acreage of Phragmites requires a long term commitment in order to effectively treat each years designated acreage for the additional two years of follow up treatment required. Each treated acre of Phragmites will require a three-year commitment; initial and two follow up treatments. Phragmites treatment with glyphosate (aquatic approve Roundup) will be applied aerially on most areas for the first treatment period. If possible, Phragmites treatment areas will be burned or mowed to remove residual following the initial aerial treatment in the fall or spring. This will encourage growth from competitive desirable species and allow for easier access for follow up treatment of any surviving Phragmites stems/plants with ground application equipment. If burning cannot be accomplished then mowing will be the second choice, for residual removal. If mowing cannot be accomplished then rolling/trampling can be used if affordable or considered effective. Livestock grazing can be used on two year delayed burn treatments to help open up the area for chemical treatment (enough green Phragmites will be available at that time to hold livestock in the area).Once monotypic stands of Phragmites have been thinned it becomes a plant-by-plant herbicide treatment in order to reduce damage to desirable species such as Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Olney Threesquare (Scirpus olneyi) and Alkali Bulrush (Scirpus paludosus). Some sources indicate a delayed application of herbicide after desirable plants have started into dormancy may reduce mortality on desirable plants. Phragmites being a warm season grass goes into dormancy after a period of frost and typically after some native plants such as Alkali Bulrush. This may allow for a second year aerial spot-treatment in areas where living Phragmites stems are in excess of 15% of the original stand. Residual removal is considered necessary for follow-up treatment in year two. This allows for access into the area by ground equipment. It also allows the pilot to find surviving Phragmites stands for aerial treatment if that method of application is selected or required. No additional burn for the initial treatment site is anticipated after the initial
burn unless cattail or Phragmites stands remain too thick to penetrate effectively or are blocking light penetration to allow for germination of more desirable plants. It is not recommended aerial application be applied on the third year treatment unless stands are dense enough and large enough to justify the use of the helicopter for aerial application. Ground treatment should be the only option for the third year during follow-up treatment to be as selective as possible and reduce damage to desirable plants. Aerial application will be used for the initial application in most cases for Phragmites control efforts and on occasion as a second year treatment if survival within the stands so dictates. Follow up application of herbicide for Phragmites control will be accomplished with backpack sprayers, tractor mounted sprayer, track machine mounted sprayer, airboat mounted sprayer and by ATV mounted sprayer. Helicopter application for more sensitivity and selectivity will be requested as the method for aerial application. Summer drawdowns and drought stressing remaining Phragmites stands has shown to be an important tool for wetland managers. DWR and FFSL managers will select areas that have already been treated for 3-4 years and where Phragmites stands have been reduced significantly. Drought stressing has shown to reduce Phragmites seed production, overall growth, and expansion. However, in order to implement this strategy, some areas are in need of water control structures in order to divert water.

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.

UDWR, within the scope of this project has worked and will continue to work with USU in studying treatment effectiveness and returning native plant communities. Research from USU has identified strategies that prove treatment efficiency and effectiveness (for both large and small patches), strategies to improve native seed germination, and strategies to help improve
Phragmites grazing program. Monitoring will include germination rates, abiotic factors that affect seed germination and seedling survival, and look at what type of litter removal works best (mowing, trampling, or complete removal of litter). USU will continue to monitor seeding treatments with the UDWR and adjacent FFSL lands. In particular they will be monitoring different seeding densities, species composition, and developing a predictive model where seeding is likely to be most successful. Starting in 2020, USU will be initiating a large re-vegetation trial with funding through an EPA Grant. This project will implement seeding and planting techniques and monitor the results. DWR compiles data on vegetation transects and photo-points of some treated areas for at least three years. DWR also monitors bird populations on all of the WMA's during monthly waterfowl and quarterly non-game bird counts.
FFSL conducts annual monitoring photopoints and line-intercept transect data on Phragmites treatments. FFSL and DWR have partnered with the UDAF ISM monitoring specialist. She has and will conduct in depth annual monitoring on Phragmites treatment areas. In depth annual reports have and will be written to track successes and failures. FFSL and DWR have initiated a UAS remote sensing program to monitor Phragmites cover in the treatment areas. This program is still under development, however, in 2019 a complete procedure was developed and remote sensing maps were successfully produced. This year another round of remote sensing is planned for Howard Slough WMA. Expanding to additional areas is planned for subsequent years.

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.

Partners include: Forestry Fire and State Lands (FFSL), Utah State University (USU), Utah Department of Agriculture (UDAF), Utah Geologic Survey (UGS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge), Box Elder, Weber, and Cache County, Central Davis Sewer District, The Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, private duck clubs, Utah Waterfowl Association, Delta Waterfowl, Wasatch
Wigeons. FFSL has committed funding to match with federal funds in order to continue work on DWR and FFSL lands around the GSL. USU continues to provide valuable monitoring data and scholarly reports pertaining to Phragmites control and re-vegetation along the GSL. UDAF will continue annual vegetation monitoring of Phragmites treatments. UGS will pilot drones for
multispectral imagery collection. USFWS will continue to contribute funds for aerial treatments on their property. The counties continue with implementing treatments upstream of WMA's. Central Davis Sewer District is contributing funds for aerial treatment of Phragmites along their treatment facility outflow which extends onto state sovereign lands managed by FFSL. The Nature Conservancy is treating adjacent Phragmites and helping to coordinate water management. Audubon is treating adjacent Phragmites, monitoring, and applying for additional funding. Although not all of these partners are contributing direct funds for this project, these agencies and groups are contributing to the treatment and reduction of Phragmites on their respective properties. Also, many of these partners contribute volunteer hours during treatment implementation. Multi-agency and adjacent and upstream treatment is imperative due to Phragmites wind and water dispersal. All of these agencies support this proposed project. Collaboration with these partners pertaining to treatment effectiveness, treatment locations, and strategies has been very beneficial.

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.

This is a multi-year project that will only be successful with continued efforts. The initial 2006 project proposal was for an aggressive continued effort for 15 years, until 2021. Afterwards
activities would shift to a more routine weed maintenance effort on the WMAs. Starting in the fall of 2021 (FY22), most Phragmites treatment activities within the diked (impounded) units of the WMA's will be considered weed maintenance efforts. These efforts will span small to fairly large areas throughout most of the units at each WMA. Collaboration with researchers will continue in order to stay current with Phragmites management and strategies that will improve our wetlands. During the course of this project there has been an effort to educate other agencies, local cities, organizations and private landowners on how to treat Phragmites and the need to do so within the entire drainage area of the Great Salt Lake. These efforts and partnerships need to, and will continue in order to enhance and preserve wetland habitats around the GSL.

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.