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 in Cache, Box Elder, and Weber Counties. 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. However, with this funding, the counties will be able to control Phragmites upstream of our WMA's and help slow down an influx of seed sources into DWR WMA's. 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. There is a large need for control treatments upstream of DWR WMA's as Phragmites has proliferated along roadsides, streams, ditches, and other waterways that make their way to DWR waterfowl areas.

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, and County 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. No action upstream of DWR WMA's by counties would lead to increased spread of Phragmites and increased seed dispersal downstream. Cooperation and coordination are critical, as well as information dissemination.

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 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). 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 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.

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.

For UDWR lands: Archaeology, covered by categorical exclusion and SHPO MOU, Dec 3 2014. NEPA, This activity is covered by categorical exclusion, Dec 3 2014 For County managed lands: Counties follow NEPA process and documentation according to the National Discharge of Pesticide Permit.

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 (for both large and small patches), strategies to improve native seed germination, and strategies to help improve Phragmites grazing program. We are still waiting on results from a field hydro-seeding study. The final data collection will occur in FY19. 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 hydroseeding treatments with the UDWR and adjacent FFSL lands that UDWR manage. In particular they will be monitoring different seeding densities, species composition, and developing a predictive model where seeding is likely to be most successful. UDWR 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.

Partners include: Forestry Fire and State Lands (FFSL), Utah State University (USU), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge), Sportsmans for Fish and Wildlife, Box Elder, Weber, and Cache County, private duck clubs, Utah Waterfowl Association, Delta Waterfowl, Wasatch Wigeons. 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.

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. These efforts and partnerships need to, and will continue in order to enhance and preserve wetland habitats around the GSL.

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. This project will continue to improve wetland conditions for all recreational activities. Hunter access and watchable wildlife opportunities have increased considerably with this project as Phragmites has been controlled to more acceptable levels.

07/01/2019

08/28/2020

2021

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 which was contracted out to PMG Vegetation Control. Equipment for this project included 3 Marshmasters, 3 Softraks, numerous UTV's, truck sprayers, and 4 water trailers equipped with power washers and pumps for filling herbicide tanks. Herbicide was applied at a rate of 3 quarts/acre glyphosate, and a surfactant was added at 2 quarts per 100 gallon of solution.

Aerial application of glyphosate was completed by Hammond Helicopter. Aerial application included maintenance spot spraying at Farmington Bay, Howard Slough, Ogden Bay, Harold Crane, and Public Shooting Grounds Waterfowl Management Areas. Most of the aerial treatment at Public Shooting Grounds WMA consisted of 90% cattail and 10% Phragmites. All other aerial treatments consisted of >90% Phragmites and <10% cattail. Total acres for aerial application was just over 1,500 acres. Follow up applications (2nd & 3rd year applications), and maintenance applications (4th year or beyond) of herbicide for Phragmites control was accomplished using track machines mounted sprayers, airboat mounted sprayers, and by ATV mounted sprayers. All ground applications were implemented by DWR Northern Region waterfowl staff, other DWR staff, and volunteers. Approximately, 5,000 acres was treated using ground equipment. To help remove and accelerate decomposition of dead Phragmites biomass UDWR personnel mowed various locations at Farmington Bay, Howard Slough, and Ogden Bay in March of 2020. 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. Approximately, 580 acres was mowed. 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. Just over 5,000 acres was grazed. 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 outside the dike at Farmington Bay and Howard Slough. 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.

As of this year, all units within diked (impounded) wetlands at all DWR WMA's have been treated for Phragmites. We are now in more of a maintenance mode, treating patches of Phragmites throughout the whole WMA. 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. 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.