White River Enhancement Project Phase 4
Project ID: 4546
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2019
Submitted By: 1012
Project Manager: Jerrad Goodell
PM Agency: Bureau of Land Management
PM Office: Vernal
Lead: Bureau of Land Management
WRI Region: Northeastern
Description:
The proposed project will target 100 acres of riparian area infested with Russian olive and tamarisk by cutting and piling sawed trees, treating the stumps with herbicide, and placing limbed logs near the river to increase large woody debris input. If the Russian olive is not adjacent to cottonwoods the frill method will be used. The project will benefit fish and wildlife by addressing key habitat threats such as river channelization and invasive plants in the riparian zone.
Location:
Work will occur on prioritized sites along the White River, between the Utah state line and the river's confluence with the Green River. The White River is located in Uintah County, south of Vernal Utah. Department of Water Quality 2016 assessment for the White River is category 3 (No assessment; more data required).
Project Need
Need For Project:
The White River riparian corridor has become increasingly dominated by Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis). These invasives replace native plant communities by creating dense monocultures, preventing native plants from establishing or re-establishing along the riparian corridor. The impacts from these infestations include the reduction and elimination of native plant communities, directly reducing the plant community diversity, insect diversity, wildlife habitat diversity, aggressive fuels accumulation, and reduction of cottonwood galleries which are important sources of large woody debris for fish habitat in the river. Additionally the infestations armor the stream bank preventing lateral dissipation of stream energy, effectively narrowing and deepening the channel resulting in a loss of instream habitat complexity. This disconnects the stream from the riparian zone reducing the amount of floodplain and backwater habitat available to juvenile fish; backwater zones are important habitats for many of the native endangered and conservation agreement fishes in the White River. Control and removal of both Russian olive and tamarisk infestations are critical to a healthy and functioning riparian system, which directly affects the overall health of the watershed. The goal of this project is to reduce Russian olive and tamarisk densities along the river, restore native plant communities, and improve instream conditions for native fish.
Objectives:
1) Improve water quality of the White River 2) Decrease the stems/acre of Russian olive and tamarisk 3) Restore Cottonwood Galleries 4) Reduce Hazardous fuel loads 5) Restore natural geomorphic process, and improve instream fish habitat
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
The continued expansion and dominance of Russian olive and tamarisk in plant communities along the White River reduces native plant recruitment, diversity, and density. Invasive plant infestations degrade channel form resulting in loss of instream habitat and complexity for native endangered and conservation agreement fishes. A secondary risk is the continued expansion of these invasive species into other connected tributaries and subsequent increases in fuel accumulations that could result in more intense and extreme fire events. Large and hotter fires would ultimately lead to a loss of cottonwoods and willows and the wildlife habitat they provide, as well as increasing the potential for continued infestation by these non-native species. This cycle can then repeat all but eliminating the native riparian communities.
Relation To Management Plan:
Vernal BLM Fire Management Plan *Chemical treatments would be utilized in conjunction with prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to achieve desired objectives, and to also control invasive species. Vernal RMP ROD Works towards Goals and objectives for Special Status Species in the Vernal RMP (pg. 128) Vegetation Management Decisions; *VEG-4; Manage the vegetation to attain the ecological stage that will benefit wildlife in crucial habitat and livestock grazing. Manage vegetation in remaining areas that results in high vegetation species diversity. *VEG-5; Allow mechanical, fire, biological, cultural or chemical methods for vegetation manipulation, using the type of manipulation appropriate to and consistent with other land use objectives, and incorporating standard operation procedures and BMP's, as applicable, to protect other resources. *VEG-9; Manage the vegetation to attain the ecological stage that will: ensure sustainability, meet authorized use allocations (wildlife,livestock),ensure species diversity. Deer Statewide Management Plan *The plan states mule deer do best in habitats that are in the early stages of plant succession this project returns portions of the White River Corridor to this state. Other threats include catastrophic Fire, and expansion of invasive plant species resulting in loss or degradation of habitat. Habitat objective 2 line e: states use WRI to improve riparian habitats throughout Utah. Strategic Management Plan for Wild Turkey 2000: Suitable general habitat includes 3 key ingredients, trees, forbs, and grass which are not found in invasive species monocultures. Which is what the White River corridor will become without management action. The plan states cottonwood riparian habitats are most important for Rio Grande Subspecies of wild turkeys, this project restores that habitat; *. Yellow-billed Cuckoo, A Technical Conservation Assessment Utah-Conservation Strategy *The plans recommendations for Utah include: maintain/improve natural flow regimes in riverine/riparian systems. By removing highly flammable tamarisk biomass, the project protects the riparian resource and supports Objective #1 for Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity in Utah's Wildlife Action Plan (WAP, 2015): "Fire is excluded from habitats in which potential burns now would be frequent, large, and destructive to soils and native vegetation; the habitats are being actively managed (treated) to reduce components or factors that promote risk of catastrophic fire...". Project actions also support Objective #2 for Invasive Plant Species (WAP, 2015), which reads: "Invasive plant dominance/presence is reduced or eliminated in locations or habitats where such an outcome is realistic (ecologically and economically)." Three Species Range wide Conservation Agreement/Utah Three Species Plan: The three species are currently managed under a range-wide and state conservation agreement to which the BLM and UDWR are signatories. The proposed restoration specifically targets improvement of these species population by improving habitat and implementation of a monitoring plan, helping accomplish the goals of the agreement. Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program:The endangered Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and humpback chub have all been observed in the White River. The proposed project will benefit these endangered species and contribute toward the goal of recovering population of each species.
Fire / Fuels:
Russian olive alter the structure of plant communities by increasing vertical and horizontal canopy density, increasing fuel continuity, and creating volatile fuel ladders (Zouhar et al. 2008, Katz and Shafroth 2003). Tamarisk and Russian olive can form dense, fire prone thickets that develop into monospecific stands because of vigorous root sprout growth following fire. The potential for more extreme fires will intensify as the density and cover of the tamarisk and Russian olive encroachment increases. By reducing the hazardous fuel load will reduce the possibility for fire events. Increased fire frequency and intensity favor tamarisk and Russian olive re-establishment over less fire adapted native riparian species, such as willow and cottonwood, which are slower to re-sprout post fire (Zouhar 2003).
Water Quality/Quantity:
Tamarisk and Russian olive have a major impact on hydrology and soil chemistry. Large-scale tamarisk removal has the potential to improve water quality by reducing salinity levels of soils in riparian habitats. In addition, tamarisk tends to have higher rates of evapotranspiration than the native upland plants that it tends to displace from floodplain habitats. Removal of tamarisk and Russian olive has been linked to saving water and over time water quality increases (Shafroth et al. 2009).
Compliance:
NEPA was completed by the VFO BLM in December 2014, included in the NEPA are avoidance measures for archeology and cultural resources. A Pesticide Use Proposal will be submitted to the BLM before application of chemicals.
Methods:
The removal of the Russian olive and tamarisk will be conducted by Conservation Corps using a cut-stump method, in some places Frill cut will be used on Russian olive. After cutting tamarisk and Russian olive stems with chain saws, crews will pile the slash and treat stumps with herbicide. Where possible limbs or tree trunks with an average diameter of 4 inches will limbed and cut to 8-10 foot lengths and placed near the river. The limbing of the logs is expected to minimize potential conflict that could occur between rafters and the addition of large woody debris/habitat to the system. Two habitat treatment areas are planned: one will focus on Cottonwood gallery restoration by removing invasive trees under and near mature cottonwoods, thus allowing for cottonwood recruitment and returning mature Cottonwood stands to galleries with multiple age classes of trees present; the other treatment area will focus on monocultures of invasive trees, opening up areas for recolonization by native plants. In monoculture locations the Tamarisk will be cut and piled, while the Russian olive will be frill cut. Frill cut reduces the re-sprout response and maintains habitat structure while removing competition from invasive vegetation. Treatment sites will be prioritized with the assistance of Utah State University's Riparian Condition Assessment Tool. Sites lacking native vegetation post treatment will be evaluated for survival probability of native plantings, if determined to have high potential native planting will be conducted. Contracting to youth crews will be handled and administered by UDWR with on the ground supervision completed by the Vernal BLM. The cutting is planned for the fall of 2018, with planting later in the fall or in the spring of 2019. Project data will be incorporated into a regional geodatabase of restoration activities in the Colorado, connecting outputs of these efforts to a wider network, and thus increasing future funding opportunities.
Monitoring:
To determine the effectiveness of the treatments, long-term monitoring plots will be established at treatment sites along the White River corridor. Percent cover will be measured pre- and post-treatment. When possible Pre and Post aerial imagery will be captured with a drone camera. A Utah Department of Water Quality monitoring station has been reactivated near the highway 45 bridge through co-ordination with UDEQ and BLM (ID 4933970). For water year 2019 the BLM will propose to reactivate the monitoring site on the Glenn Bench road (ID 4933730). Instream habitat usage by endangered and conservation agreement fishes will be monitored by UDWR fish biologist with the use of portable PIT tag detectors.This is possible because over the last decade tens of thousands of native fish have been tagged and released into the Green River System with some tagging efforts focused in the White. These fish make long distance migrations between the Green River and its tributaries including the White River. Monitoring habitat creation and usage will be instrumental in informing project success and future restoration efforts.
Partners:
Water quality monitoring has been established with UDEQ. Project personnel are working with private landowners to treat infestations on private land. The Tamarisk Coalition is building a restoration partnership to indoctrinate restoration methods, monitoring, and management procedures for the purpose of coordinating with other partners and consistency with long-term efforts. Recently, Tamarisk Coalition personnel have conducted talks with the UTE tribe to collaborate and work on tribal lands. Project personnel are working with Utah State University to use their riparian Condition Assessment Tool to plan and prioritize sites for treatment. A proposal to acquire improved satellite imagery to feed the riparian tool is being developed with the BLM National Operations Center. A memorandum of understanding is being developed by Tamarisk Coalition and reviewed by multiple private and public entities to establish a White River Partnership to develop and implement a comprehensive approach toward the conservation of ah healthy riparian ecosystem for the White River in both Colorado and Utah.
Future Management:
The project is part of a multi-year effort that will involve follow-up monitoring, active re-vegetation, and treatments to control infestations of priority non-native, invasive plant species such as tamarisk and Russian olive, as well as potential secondary weeds that degrade native habitat conditions. The long-term goal is to restore riparian and floodplain habitats along the lower White River in a manner that creates diverse riparian communities comprised primarily of native plant species as a means of improving the condition and resiliency of riparian and aquatic habitats. This will require an adaptive management approach, and Tamarisk Coalition is working with BLM and other partners to establish evaluation criteria and procedures for addressing changing factors. TC will hold technical and coordination workshops with upstream partners also conducting restoration activities to ensure collaborative and coordinated approaches among both Utah and Colorado efforts.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Tamarisk and Russian olive can decrease the availability of water for livestock (Hill pers. Comm. 2009). By eliminating large stands of tamarisk and Russian olive in this riparian system livestock will be able to utilize this system and the vegetation diversity benefits this project will achieve. Removing invasive woody vegetation will facilitate the reestablishment of perennial grasses, native forbs, and shrubs that have much higher forage value than tamarisk. However, targeted revegetation and broadcast seeding will accelerate the recolonization of native grasses in selected areas where native grasses are sparse in habitat adjacent to treatment sites. Control of tamarisk can make managing livestock easier. Previously dense stands of tamarisk that have either been removed or thinned (depending on site-conditions) increase access for ranchers to monitor and manage cattle on public allotments. As well, grazing and animal distribution will increase since more river bank is accessible for watering livestock and wildlife.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$96,125.00 $12,500.00 $108,625.00 $11,100.00 $119,725.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Archaeological Clearance Was completed by the BLM in 2014 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2014
NEPA NEPA was completed by the BLM in 2014 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2014
Equipment Purchase 3 "Wagon Wheel" Pit tag detectors to Monitor habitat usage by endangered and conservation agreement fish species. $17,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Youth crews to conduct vegetation treatments contracted by UDWR @ $6,800 per week for 8 person boat crew. $68,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Tamarisk Coalition coordinating project implementation and monitoring; geodatabase integration; capacity and per diem for mileage, lodging, and food. $6,125.00 $12,500.00 $1,100.00 2019
Materials and Supplies Herbicides for invasive treatment and purchase of native plants. $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$96,125.00 $12,500.00 $108,625.00 $11,100.00 $119,725.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Tamarisk Coalition Supplemental and complementary fundraising; advance MOU and partnership network; technical and coordination workshop; integration with regional geodatabase; travel expenses. $0.00 $12,500.00 $1,100.00 2019
BLM HLI Southeastern N6565 Mod 11 $79,125.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 2014
BLM HLI Southeastern A017 $17,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Bald Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Big Free-tailed Bat N3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Bluehead Sucker N4
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Low
Bluehead Sucker N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Bluehead Sucker N4
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Colorado Pikeminnow N1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Low
Colorado Pikeminnow N1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Colorado Pikeminnow N1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Flannelmouth Sucker N3
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Low
Flannelmouth Sucker N3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Flannelmouth Sucker N3
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Fringed Myotis N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Humpback Chub N1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Low
Humpback Chub N1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Humpback Chub N1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Razorback Sucker N1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Low
Razorback Sucker N1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Razorback Sucker N1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Roundtail Chub N3
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Low
Roundtail Chub N3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Roundtail Chub N3
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Spotted Bat N3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo N3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Salinity Alteration (of water) Medium
Riverine
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Riverine
Threat Impact
OHV Motorized Recreation Low
Riverine
Threat Impact
Salinity Alteration (of water) Medium
Riverine
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Riverine
Threat Impact
Fire and Fire Suppression Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/04/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
In the Relation to Management Plans section you cite several wildlife management plans that I'm not entirely sure are applicable. For example, you cite the Statewide Elk Management plan and reference protecting crucial elk habitats, yet none of this area is identified as crucial elk habitat. You reference a goal in the statewide Mule deer management plan relative to adopting seasonal closures or travel restrictions to protect mule deer habitat, but I don't see anything in this project that indicates you are doing that. You cite a management plan for Pheasants in relation to "increasing acreage" but Russian olive provides good habitat for pheasant, meaning this project likely doesn't fit the intent of that management plan. You also cite the state management plan for Turkeys citing goals that may not really be applicable. At the same time, you haven't cited management plans for most of the species you listed as benefiting from this project, in particular the native fishes.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jerrad Goodell
Thank you for your comment, this section has been updated.
Comment 01/04/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
On the Species page, under Yellow-billed Cuckoo, you list the threat of Problematic Plant Species--Native Wetland. However, I don't see anything in the project proposal that says you are targeting any native wetland plant species, only the non-native Tamarisk and Russian olive. I believe this threat should be removed as it isn't applicable.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jerrad Goodell
That threat has been removed.
Comment 01/04/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
I am struggling to understand the true effect this project (and others like it) have in regards to fire. While you did a great job writing this section, I'm not convinced it is as significant or as clear-cut as you make it seem. I looked up the papers you cited and, from what I can tell, the risk of fire in Russian olive and tamarisk areas is not well understood and needs further research. At the very least, fire doesn't seem to be the major concern in regards to either species. True, as tamarisk dies and accumulates a lot of dead wood there is an increase in fuels and erratic fire behavior, but for green tamarisk and Russian olive there appears to be a relatively low risk of fire. I am not trying to suggest that there isn't a risk or that this project won't reduce it, but in trying to determine how to rank the different projects this year I guess I'm not convinced that fire and fuels is a major player on this one.
Comment 02/02/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Tory here's a resource for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEphzugwcmQ. I highly recommend it, as it covers many relationships and mechanisms you question, in a data-rich and often experimental way. As an aside, it is *by no means true* that green tamarisk is not a fire-receptive fuel bed. And once ignited, the energy release can be most impressive.
Comment 02/05/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
Thanks for the extra resource, Jimi. After watching the video I would agree that there is more of a risk of fire than I initially thought. I think this video makes a better case for it than the literature cited by the project manager in the fire/fuels section. My initial review of that literature left me unconvinced, especially after reading in the Zouhar et. al paper that "high water and salt content of green tamarisk foliage make it difficult to burn except under extreme conditions." If the project were only removing Russian olive, I think the fire argument would be weak, but where they are also targeting tamarisk, I'll give it to them.
Comment 01/22/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Brian Maxfield
I suggest work near the Bald Eagle nests along the river be conducted after nesting period to reduce any disturbance to the nests.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jerrad Goodell
Thank you for your input. Work will be coordinated with BLM wildlife biologist to implement proper timing and buffer restrictions.
Comment 01/22/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Miles Hanberg
I suggest modifying your map image to reflect which 100 acres are targeted.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jerrad Goodell
A proposal to gather high quality satellite imagery along the white river corridor is currently being developed, this data will be used in the Utah State University's Riparian Condition Assessment Tool. Using this tool 100 acres will be selected for treatment. Maps will be updated upon location selection.
Comment 02/02/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
I suggest you cite the Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) in the section "Relation to Other Plans". E.g. this WAP objective is relevant to your project: Objective #2 for Invasive Plant Species -- Non-native *Invasive plant dominance/presence is reduced or eliminated in locations or habitats where such an outcome is realistic (ecologically and economically).* Likewise, so is this WAP objective: Objective #1 for Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity. *Fire is excluded from habitats in which potential burns now would be frequent, large, and destructive to soils and native vegetation; the habitats are being actively managed (treated) to reduce components or factors that promote risk of catastrophic fire, such as cheatgrass, excessive conifer encroachment, or unnaturally large stands of mature Gambel oak.* Note that this is a list of examples, not intended to be exhaustive.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: David Varner
Thank you for your review and comment; the Relation to Management Plan section has been updated.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
It sounds like you've got some good things going to build a broad partnership along the river. I'm glad to see efforts to include private and tribal lands. I did not see anything about including SITLA lands, however. Are they being included in this partnership? Has there been any outreach to SITLA to coordinate removal of tamarisk and Russian olive on those lands?
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: David Varner
Thank you for your comments. Since some parts of the White River riparian corridor traverse SITLA lands, project managers are interested to pursue a collaborative relationship with that entity. Managers will seek input at the Feb. 13 UPCD/WRI project presentation meeting, and follow up with contacts from there.
Comment 08/19/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
This is just a reminder that completion reports are due August 31st. I have entered the expenses in the Through WRI/DWR column on the finance page. Please do not make any changes to numbers in the Through WRI/DWR column. Any "Through Other" or "In-kind" expenses will need to be entered by the PM or contributors. Be sure to click on the finalize button on the completion report when you have your completion report ready to be reviewed by WRI Admin. Don't forget to upload any pictures of the project you have of before, during and after completion. Thanks.
Comment 09/01/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thank you for submitting your completion form on time. It looks great. Thanks for uploading pictures!
Completion
Start Date:
04/29/2019
End Date:
06/15/2020
FY Implemented:
2020
Final Methods:
Utah Conservation Corps chainsaw crews removed tamarisk using the cut-stump method and removed Russian olive using a combination of cut-stump and frill cutting methods. The cut-stump method was used to restore cottonwood gallery forests by removing the invasive trees that were present under and adjacent to cottonwood trees. Outside of cottonwood forests, tamarisk was treated with the cut-stump method and Russian olive was treated with the frill cut method, which reduces resprout responses and maintains habitat structure. Crews also retreated 2017 treatment sites, which were reported to have an 80% success rate. Biomass management consisted of 3 methods: terrestrial habitat piles, lop and scatter, and gradual large woody debris inputs to the river for fish species. Pit tag detectors were not placed in the river to monitor fish populations because the high water levels would have made them difficult to read and risked washing them away.The funds for fish monitoring equipment was carried over into FY 2020 and that spring/summer Matt Breen at UDWR Vernal was able to purchase the fish sampling equipment. Project managers coordinated planning meetings and funding requests. A restoration workshop was held for upriver stakeholders in Meeker, Colorado. Additional grant funding was secured through a private foundation and the Bureau of Reclamation. The stakeholder group expanded and focused outreach continues.
Project Narrative:
Utah Conservation Corps hand crews worked in the White River riparian zones that are inaccessible by heavy equipment and require chainsaw crews to implement the woody invasive plant treatments. Russian olive and tamarisk located under and adjacent to cottonwood forests were treated with the cut-stump method. Downed trees and branches were removed from the area to reduce hazardous fuel ladders and piled in the floodplain. This created temporary habitat and cover for small animals and incrementally introduced large woody debris into the river at different river stages. This is expected to mimic the natural regime of woody debris input as opposed to all of the debris entering the system at once or none of the debris entering system at all. The large woody debris is important for native endangered and conservation agreement fish species. In some locations where the cut-stump method was applied, crews managed biomass using the lop-and-scatter method, cutting and dispersing the brush so that it is less than 6 inches above the ground. Outside of the cottonwood tree canopies, where ladder fuels pose a lower risk, the frill cut method was used. The frill cut method places stepped cuts into the cambium layer of the tree without fully girdling it. Herbicide is placed into the cuts. The technique is intended to kill the tree, reduce re-sprout responses, and maintain some habitat structure. The crews treated a total of 5 acres of invasive woody trees, this area had previously treated Russian Olives using the frill cut method during Phase 2 WRI project #3702, but due to the adaptive management of this ongoing restoration effort and implementation of new treatment methods this area was selected for continued treatments to remove the biomass under cottonwoods and removal of Tamarisk, therefore this area is viewed as new treatments rather than re-treatment due to the new methods applied. Crews also retreated 9 acres of resprouts. Attached photos show that the invasive infestations are extremely dense. This treatment restored cottonwood gallery forests by reducing the risk of wildfire and opening space for the natural recruitment of cottonwood trees, which will result in stands of mixed-age trees. The treatment also improves the hydrology of the river by reducing the bank armoring caused by tamarisk and Russian olive. The project also aims to improve endangered and conservation agreement fish by mimicking natural cycles of large woody debris inputs. Tamarisk Coalition (dba RiversEdge West (REW)) secured complementary funding awards from the Eccles Foundation and the Bureau of Reclamation to continue establishing the White River Partnership in Utah and Colorado. RiversEdge West continued WRP stakeholder group development in Utah (Utah Petroleum Association) and in Colorado (Trout Unlimited, White River and Douglas Creek Conservation District, Colorado Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust, White River Alliance, NRCS, BLM Northwest Colorado District Office, BLM White River Field Office). A technical and funding restoration workshop was held in Meeker, CO on September 20, 2018.
Future Management:
This project is part of a multi-year effort to control infestations of priority woody invasive species (including tamarisk and Russian olive) and potential secondary invasive weeds that degrade riparian habitat and hydrologic conditions. It also involves site monitoring and maintenance through retreatments and active revegetation with desirable species when site conditions are conducive. The long-term goal of the project is to create diverse and resilient riparian plant communities comprised of mostly native species that improves the condition and resiliency of riparian and aquatic habitats as well as the hydrologic function of the lower White River. Collaboration between partners in the White River Partnership will allow for technical knowledge sharing, fundraising coordination, and a watershed-wide approach to restoration. Due to Ute tribal elections and staff turnover, REW is working to reestablish connections with the Ute tribe representatives. REW has stakeholder meetings planned for early November in Utah and Colorado in order to garner support for a large WRP meeting in January. REW, UCC, BLM, and other partners are also developing grants or waiting decisions for grants that would complement funding for White River riparian restoration and the White River Partnership development.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
8248 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Manual removal / hand crew
8249 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Manual removal / hand crew
Project Map
Project Map