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. 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 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.

The goal for the project is to protect, enhance and maximize the benefits for the wildlife resources and the public that use these WMA's. The objective is to control noxious weeds on the areas through eradication or containment to acceptable levels, to reduce fire hazards and restore wildlife habitat. The need is to maintain existing suitable habitat and improve marginal habitat that have noxious weed infestations. To reduce the possibility of weed dispersion onto adjacent private and public lands form these Division managed lands. There is a need to continue maintaining the State's premier wetlands for the public's use and enjoyment in a productive, functional and esthetically pleasing condition.

Loss of habitat and public use. Invasive weeds reduce access, food production and cover value for wildlife. Access through Phragmites is limited by dense stands and precludes human use. No action or delayed action allows for continued expansion, loss of additional acreage and increased costs for treatment. Cooperation and coordination are critical, as well as information dissemination.

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 measureable 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 13Seek landscape solutions that benefit waterfowl pg 14Duck population objective 62 mil with fall flight of 100 mil maintaining current diversity of species pg 17US 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, long-billed 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. Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) 2015 Draft: 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 inbalance, 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 realis0c (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).

Phragmites forms dense monotypic stands. These stands hold very high levels of dead (litter) and living biomass that can produce extremely hot, fast moving, and tall flame lengths if ignition occurs. With many of these wetland areas surrounded by urban and rural structures, the threat of fire and the potential for neighboring structure damage is high. Reducing the cover of Phragmites through this project will greatly reduce the threat and risks of fire damage on the WMAs and adjacent properties.

Due to it's high biomass, Phragmites evapotranspiration is higher than most native plant species. Reducing the amount of Phragmites can help improve water quantity. Phragmites also accretes soil and litter at much higher rates than most native plants. Rapid soil accretion, high amounts of litter, and very high density of stems, alters water distributions reducing downstream flow and in some cases, resulting in loss of wetland habitat further downstream. Slower flows also results in increased evaporation.

2 PMArchaeology, Covered by categorical exclusion and SHPO MOU, Dec 3 2014 / 6 NEPA, This activity is covered by categorical exclusion, Dec 3 2014

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 (Rodeo) 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.

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. We are still wainting on results from a Phragmites grazing study, a small-patch treatment study, a greenhouse re-seeding study, and a field hydro-seeding study. USU will monitor hydro-seeding techniques. 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). DWR complies data on vegetation transects and photo-points of some treated areas for at least three years.

Partners include: Forestry Fire and State Lands, Salt Lake International Airport, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge), Box Elder and Cache County, Utah Department of Transportation, Utah State University, and most private duck clubs. Although these partners are not contributing direct funds for this project, these agencies are contributing to the treatment and reduction of Phragmites on their properties. 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 and strategies has been imperative.

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. 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.

The Waterfowl Management Areas are currently using cattle to help control and contain dense stands of Phragmites. Grazing is mostly being utilized in areas that become drought stressed in the fall and are unsuitable for chemical application. Some cattle are also being used in areas that have gone through the 3 year chemical treatment cycle in order to maintain remaining stands of Phragmites.

07/01/2018

06/30/2019

2019

Aerial application of glyphosate was completed by Brent Wood with Helo-Wood Helicopters Inc. Aerial application included maintenance spot spraying and complete first year treatments at Farmington Bay, Howard Slough, Ogden Bay, Harold Crane, and Public Shooting Grounds Waterfowl Management Areas. This also included 1040 acres on the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. Follow up applications (2nd & 3rd year applications), and maintenance applications (4th year or beyond) of herbicide for Phragmites control was accomplished using track machine mounted sprayers, airboat mounted sprayers, and by ATV mounted sprayers. Most of the ground applications was implemented by DWR personnel with the exception of a portion of Farmington Bay (Turpin Unit) that was contracted out to PMG Vegetation Control. To help remove and accelerate decomposition of dead Phragmites biomass, sections of the East Crystal Unit and Doug Miller Unit was mowed by PMG Vegetation Control. PMG also mowed Phragmites at Howard Slough in the south impoundment. They also mowed at Ogden Bay in Unit 3, North Bachman Pond, the North Secodary of Unit 1, and the North Run Impoundment. With the addition of 3 new MarshMasters with flail mower attachments, UDWR personnel mowed various locations at Farmington Bay, Howard Slough, and Ogden Bay in March of 2019. These vegetation manipulations 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 the following year. 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), Threesquare (Schoenoplectus americanus ) and Alkali Bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus). 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 allowed for spot-treatment in areas where living Phragmites stems were present. Grazing was also implemented on Farmington Bay, Howard Slough, Ogden Bay, and Harold Crane WMA's. Cattle are used in areas that typically dry out before herbicide application can be implemented in August. Since spraying drought stressed plants does not work, cattle are great tools to remove this years growth, open areas up for bird use and hunter access, and to help reduce Phragmites seed production. Cattle are also used in areas that have completed the 3 year treatment cycle in order to maintain current vegetation conditions. Hydroseeding was conducted on areas within Ogden Bay WMA. Hydroseeding consisted of a mix of bulrush species (alkali, three-square, and hardstem). A synthetic tackifire (Turbatack) was used to help retain moisture and keep seeds from floating away. Hydroseeding results have been less than desirable. We continue to work with Utah State Universties Wetland Ecology Lab to improve techniques, seed mixes, and other methods. Active revegetation after herbicide and mechanical treatments is needed to reach desirable wetland vegetation. Efforts will continue with USU. Other invasive weed species were treated in the spring and early summer using ground application techniques and equipment. Chemicals included Telar, 2-4-D, Milestone, or products similar in composition and affect.

This funding allowed for the purchase of herbicide, contract for aerial application and vegetation removal, maintenance of all equipment, hydroseeding materials and supplies, monitoring of hydroseeding techniques (through Utah State University), and purchase of necessary supplies to control Phragmites australis and other invasive weeds on Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) wetland areas. Phragmites was the primary target species scheduled for treatment; however other invasive weeds were 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.), Waterhemlock (Cicuta maculata), Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima), and Cattail, (Typha spp.). Cattail and phragmites was treated in the period between August 1 and September 30, and the other noxious weed species were treated from mid-April to June 10. All on-ground aspects of this project were completed by DWR personnel and volunteers with the exception of some mowing and some ground herbicide treatments, which were contracted out.

Areas will be treated initially with a blanket aerial treatment, mowed and then spot treated for the next two-three years. Following the treatment cycle, it will be necessary to continue spot treatments to contain and control new colonization. Other management techniques such as grazing may be used following the third or fourth year of treatment to aid in control efforts. Coordination with Universities and researchers will continue to insure best management practices are implemented. We are currently working with USU on hydroseeding and re-vegetation techniques in order to establish more desirable wetland species following Phragmites control efforts. Results from hydroseeding experiment should be available within the next year. Coordination and dissemination of information about Phragmites control continues to be an integral part of this project. Information pertaining to best management practices for NGO's, private landowners, and other government agencies will continue to be presented.