SCUCWMA Salina Creek Russian Olive Control Phase III
Project ID: 5024
Status: Cancelled
Fiscal Year: 2020
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Jody Gale
PM Agency: Utah State University Extenstion Services
PM Office: Sevier County
Lead: Other
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
The USFS has classified Salina Creek as the most "at risk" drainage on the Fishlake National Forest. The 18 partners of the SCUCWMA have determined that controlling Russian olives in the riparian area is a high priority. They were awarded $29,500 from SRS. They will apply for funding from ISM program to treat about three-five miles in phase II of the project. SCUCWMA is requesting $45,000 from WRI to match SRS and ISM grants for phase III to treat another 3-4 miles.
Location:
Treatment area will be along Salina Creek and adjacent to I-70. It will begin at the Gooseberry interchange on I-70 at about milepost #63, continuing west for three to four miles to about milepost #60 or #59 respectively, dependent on contractor bids.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The Fishlake National Forest Service's determined that Salina Creek as the "most at risk drainage" on the Forest due to the invasion of woody "noxious" weed species. This includes Russian olive (RO) (Elaeagnus angustifolia) trees, Tamarisk or Saltcedar (Tamarisk, ramosissima), and other nonwoody "noxious" weedy species in the riparian zone. These highly invasive undesirable, nonnative species are out competing desirable, native and introduced species. Russian olive was declared a Class 4 "noxious" weed in 2016 by the State of Utah. Sevier County Commission declared Russian olive as a county "noxious" weed about 30 years ago. Tamarisk was declared a "noxious" weeds by the State of Utah decades ago. Ecological diversity is threatened and habitat for wildlife, fish and livestock in the Salina Creek riparian zone has been significantly reduced in the last 10-40 years.
Objectives:
Primary objective: 1. to stop the spread and 2, reduce the density of Russian olive, and other invasive, non-native woody "noxious" weed species in the riparian zone of Salina Creek. Secondary objectives: Improved ecological health and balanced biological diversity of the riparian zone and watershed. Benefits include: As "noxious" plant species are controlled native and desirable introduced plant species will be released providing desirable (and acceptable) wildlife habitat, increase in-stream flow for fish and downstream irrigation.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Without intervention, Russian olive and tamarisk will eventually replace desirable plant species in the riparian zone throughout the watershed. Both species are fire adapted and sprout readily from stumps and roots unless treated by herbicide. Tamarisk can be controlled biologically but the saltcedar leaf beetle (Diorhabda elongat), but Russian Olive has no know biological control agent. It has been observed that over the last 30-50 years these two highly invasive woody species have significantly increased in distribution, population and density. As this trend continues, it will have an increasingly negative effect on habitat for wildlife, fish and livestock. Increasing consumption of water by these thirsty weedy species will reduce in-stream water flow that threaten the canyons fishery and downstream irrigation water supply for the valley. The greatest risk occurs during drought periods. As these species compete for resources with desirable grasses and forbs grazing for wildlife and livestock is threatened and diminished. Extremely dense thickets of Russian olive and tamarisk reduce production of and access to grass and forb by shading and creates a physical barrier. It is acknowledged that these weedy species do provides cover and feed for birds and big game species, but it is at the expense of desirable non-weedy native and other introduced plant species. Failure to control these invasive "noxious" weed species in the proposed treatment area will jeopardize previous treatments and contribute to the continued ecological degradation of the riparian area watershed.
Relation To Management Plan:
The 18 partners of the South-Central Cooperative Weed Management Area (SCUCWMA) have determined that controlling Russian olives and tamarisk in the Salina Creek riparian zone is a very high priority as identified by our strategic operating plan. This partnership includes BLM (Richfield), USFS (Fishlake NF), UT Dept. of Ag. and Food, UT FFSL, UT State Parks, SITLA, Utah State University Extension, and Sevier, Wayne, Piute, and Garfield Counties, etc. Each partner brings their respective vegetation, noxious weed, and wildlife management and monitoring plans to the partnership and this project. As a result of the declaration by the State of Utah's Noxious Weed Act/List and Sevier County Commissioners Noxious Weed Ordinance/List, Russian olive and tamarisk have been declared as "noxious" weeds. Therefore, those who own, rent, lease, administer or otherwise control land are require to control these and other designated "noxious" weed species. This project will help meet the objectives of each partner's respective management and strategic plans including Sevier County Resource Management Plan (July 2017), Utah Resource Management Plan (December 2017), Wildlife Action Plan - UPCD Southern Region, Utah Noxious Weed Act and List, Utah Strategic Weed Control Plan, NRCS- EQUIP Strategic Priorities (Russian Olive cost share 2016-2018), NRCS Working Lands for Wildlife Program, and others. The project will protect and improved ecosystem diversity and habitat. Long term improvement in habitat will benefit deer, elk, moose, cottontail rabbit, black tailed jack rabbit, raptors, eagles, turkeys, migratory birds, beaver, squirrels, chipmunk, amphibians, bobcat, coyote, bear, cougar, cattle, sheep and other species.
Fire / Fuels:
Very dense stands of Russian olive and tamarisk are growing adjacent to Interstate 70 (I-70) in Salina Canyon. The stands of these two species are becoming increasingly dense contributing to an excessive fuel load. The Fire Risk Index of the project area ranges from -65.1 to -670.3. If a wildfire starts or spreads into Salina Canyon the Russian olives and tamarisk will contribute to the severity of the fire. A catastrophic wildfire from excessive fuel loads in the project area would negatively affect freeway infrastructure, travel and traveler safety, local tourism businesses, soil, water quality, increase flash flood potential, biological resources, and irrigation systems. I-70 is the primary transportation corridor for commerce and travel connecting eastern Utah and eastern states to I-15 in central Utah and other western states. SUFCO Coal Mine transports over 3 million tons of coal annual and 400 semi-truck loads daily on I-70 from the mine to western markets through Salina Canyon.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Control and removal of Russian olive and tamarisk along the stream bank will reduce shading of the stream and likely cause a temporary, short term increase in water temperatures. Long term shading will be restored, and water temperatures decrease as native woody species including willows and cottonwoods and other non-woody species growing along the bank are released or opened for establishment. This project will be treating three to four miles of the 25 miles of stream in the canyon. Stream sedimentation will be minimized by only occasional equipment crossings of the stream when other means of access are not possible to be able to treat both sides of the stream in relation to existing roads. No new roads will be constructed. Equipment will not be working actively in the stream bed. Release of annual native and desirable species throughout treatment area will minimize short term increase in sedimentation by surface disturbance. Control of infestations of released annual "noxious" weeds will be accomplished as needed. Russian olives and tamarisk trees are consuming a tremendous amount of water in the riparian area. It has been reported mature Russian olive trees may transpiring more than 200 gallons of water per day depending on their size. It has also been reported that mature tamarisk trees may transpire up to 200 gallons per day. The removal of many thousands of these trees will reduce water uptake from the shallow aquifer resulting in increase in-stream flow. This will also increase the potential for season long flow during periods of drought. Increased in-stream flow and longevity will help to sustain the fishery in the canyon and will improve downstream irrigation water for shareholders in the Salina Creek Irrigation Company in Sevier Valley.
Compliance:
NEPA has been previously completed by the USFS. A "Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Effect for Noxious Weed Management" was made by Mary Erickson, Fishlake Forest Supervisor, dated July 9th, 2003. Documentation has been submitted with project proposal.
Methods:
We have previously implemented "noxious" weed control projects in the canyon. Russian olives have been treated using the "cut stump method". This method involves cutting Russian olive trees and immediately treating the stumps with a systemic herbicide that is then translocated throughout the root system to kill the tree. It is well known that Russian olive and tamarisk trees cannot be killed by cutting alone. When attempted, it will fail to kill the tree and will promote sprouting from stumps and roots that are even more difficult to control than the parent tree. Phase 1 treatment was implemented by SCUCWMA in November 2012 - April 2013. This work was funded by a $25,000 grant from the USFS Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program and a small amount from UT Dept. of Ag. and Food's Invasive Species Mitigation (ISM) program. That project treated two miles of the canyon containing very high populations of RO from the Gooseberry interchange at about milepost #63 to the box culvert at about mile post #65. This was done using a skid steer mounted Turbo Saw/herbicide applicator that cuts the tree at ground level and immediately treating the stump with the herbicide glyphosate in the same action. A small amount of ISM funding was used to treat 15 miles of the canyon containing scattered Russian olive trees from the head of the canyon to the railroad tunnels in late March to early April 2013. This work was completed by the Sevier County Weed Department and temporary services employees who cut the trees with chainsaws and immediately hand treating stumps with glyphosate. SUCWMA was awarded $29,500 from the SRS program to treat the next 2 miles of Salina Creek picking up where the first project ended. In late 2019 the SCUCWMA is requesting funding from the ISM program to treat the next 3 miles of Salina Creek to finish the gap between the first two projects. This project is being currently being contracted and will be implemented in 2019-2020. The preferred treatment window for cut stump method is August-April. The preferred window of foliar application method is late July until a killing frost damages leaves. SCUCWMA is requesting $45,000 from the WRI 2020 program to treat three to four miles from the Gooseberry interchange about milepost #63 going west and down the drainage to approximately mile post #60 or #59 depending on cost of bids received. The treatment sub unit areas will be specified in the Scope of Work. New shoot sprouting was a problem occurring on 33% of the stumps on the 2012-2013 treatments. This was the result of surface tie-up of glyphosate caused by machinery contaminating cut stump surfaces with soil. An ISM grant for $12,000 was obtained and used to treat stump sprouts in August of 2016 using the herbicide triclopyr to improve control. Additional treatment of sprouts was completed by the Sevier County Noxious Weed Department in 2017-2019 using a tank mix of 2,4-D and dicamba with adequate aquatic labeling to improve control. The currently funded and proposed WRI projects will use the "cut stump" method with a few modifications learning from the previous Salina Canyon projects, other WRI projects and published research. These methods may include a couple of other proven alternative methods, "foliar" and basal bark "treatment methods. Trees may be treated using the cut stump methods by vehicle mounted saws or by hand operated chainsaws. They will be treated with a tank mix of more than one herbicide, applied by hand, to increase opportunity for control and reduce soil contamination of stumps by machinery. Foliar treatments may occur from July-mid September before frost damages the leaves. Foliar treatments will be completed before mid-September to avoid late fledging birds and early migrating birds. Application may be done by air, truck, ATV or backpack mounted sprayers depending on site specific conditions. Saltcedar leaf beetles (Diorhabda elongate) have been transplanted in Sevier County and Salina Canyon for over 20 years. In 2013 they finally successfully overwintered and established themselves in Salina Creek near the Goosberry interchange area adjacent to I-70. The distribution and spread of this biological control agent has increased significantly and is defoliating and killing tamarisk in the lower reaches of Salina Creek, Lost Creek, and moved out into Sevier Valley in 2017. In 2018-2019 they were observed extensively throughout Sevier Valley. These beetles have proven themselves in many areas of Utah as an effective biological control method. They are being looked to as the most practical, effective, and economical way to significantly reduce the population of tamarisk in Salina Canyon. Land ownership in the Canyon is mostly USFS. There are a very few privately held acres at the head and middle portions of the canyon. These private lands are and will continue to be included, treated, and retreated as part of the various parts of the project. The current SRS and WRI treatment area will include some private riparian land. Phase III (WRI proposal) includes more private land than phase I-II.
Monitoring:
USU Extension will provide training regarding methods of treatments and herbicide applications for contractors. The percent of control will continue to be improved by herbicide applications using a tank mixes of properly labeled herbicides including, glyphosate, triclopyr and others as needed. Employees or contractors will be instructed and monitored to assure stumps are not contaminated until herbicide has been absorbed. Implementation of treatment and application methods by contractor will be monitored by USU Extension and other members of the SCUCWMA to assure proper application. During the growing season following the year of treatment, a study of stump re-sprouting will be completed by USU Extension. Permanent before and after photo points have been established and used to help monitor the project.
Partners:
The 18 partners of the SCUCWMP include BLM, USFS, UT Dept. of Ag. and Food, UT FFSL, UT State Parks, SITLA, Utah State University Extension, and Sevier, Wayne, Piute, and Garfield Counties, and others. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is available. Letters of support have previously been obtained from Salina Irrigation Company (SIC) and livestock permittees. Salina Irrigation Company members voted at their annual shareholder meeting in February 2019 to vigorously continue their support. The Grand Canyon Trust previously provided a letter of support and they also renewed their support to control Russian olives and tamarisk in Salina Canyon in January 2019.
Future Management:
The partners of the SCUCWMA, which includes the US Fishlake National Forest which completed NEPA work, will continue implementing their long-term strategic plan and their annual scope of work to address the Russian olive problem in Salina Canyon. Each partner brings their respective vegetation, fuels, "noxious" weeds, wildlife management, monitoring plans, and responsibilities to the partnership and phase III project. They will continue to seek additional grant funding to finish treating the canyon. Once the canyon has been treated, the Fishlake National Forest will continue to monitor and treat as needed.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
The funding and successful implementation of this project will help restore the natural resources of Salina Canyon. Central to restoring biological balance to the riparian zone of this ecosystem is to stop the spread and reducing the density of the invasive, woody, non-native, "noxious" weed species. Sustainability of watershed ecosystem will be increased as biological diversity is balanced. Multiple use including, fishing, hunting, grazing by wildlife and livestock, and irrigation water supply is and will be improves as more of the canyon is treated in phase III. Conservation groups, environmental activists, fisherman, sportsman, and livestock permittee's have previously engaged the Sevier County Commission and the USFS to address the Russian olive and tamarisk problem in the watershed. The Salina Creek Irrigation Company, permittee's, and the Grand Canyon Trust and are particularly interested in, concerned about the problem, and are watching progress of treatment projects. They are anticipating improved beauty and multiple use of Salina Canyon's natural resources. Russian olive and tamarisk control projects in the canyon are widely supported by the public.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$45,000.00 $29,500.00 $74,500.00 $0.00 $74,500.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Requesting $45,000 from UWRI to treat an additional 3-4 miles to match $59,500 previously awarded from SRS and ISM being contracted. $45,000.00 $29,500.00 $0.00 2020
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$45,000.00 $29,500.00 $74,500.00 $0.00 $74,500.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (UWRI) $45,000.00 $29,500.00 $0.00 2020
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Habitats
Habitat
Riverine
Threat Impact
Agricultural / Municipal / Industrial Water Usage Very High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Increasing Stream Temperatures Unknown
Riverine
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Riverine
Threat Impact
Seeding Non-native Plants Low
Riverine
Threat Impact
Fire and Fire Suppression Medium
Riverine
Threat Impact
Relationship Between Groundwater and Surface Water NA
Project Comments
Comment 02/11/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Jody I have seen some the other phases to this project and extremely impressed. I would highly recommend to provide some map or shape files or something to show where the treatment is going to be. This will help increase understanding and make it easier to sell the this project. If you need some help, I would be more than will to give you a hand.
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jody Gale
Stan, I am not yet very experienced with the application web site and I submitted an image of the map instead of the map. I have now corrected the omission and have submitted a map. I hope it meets your needs and that of the other reviewers. Thanks, Jody
Comment 02/11/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Jody, You indicate cutting and stump treating would occur between August and April, but spray application could take place between July and September. I suggest changing the latter to August (and possibly the first 1/2 of September) to avoid late fledging birds and early migrants. Also, your list of species benefiting in your project description is perhaps a bit too inclusive. Also, what will you be doing with the vegetative materials you cut down? Will they be chopped and scattered on site, dragged out and burned, etc.? Keith
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jody Gale
Keith, The reason for the difference between the cutting and spraying window reflects the best treatment windows for stump herbicide application uptake vs foliar uptake. Foliar method must be complete before a hard frost damages the leaves. I have adjusted the dates to be more flexible but will shorten foliar treatment window to mid-September to avoid the fledging birds and early migrants. I would welcome your advice on adjusting the species benefits to be more realistic. The slash will be piled for burning after it has sufficiently dried. Russian olive takes a long time to cure enough to get a good slash pile burn. Thanks for the good questions, Jody
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jody Gale
Keith, I developed the initial list with input from Kreig Rasmussen and Kendall Bagley. I have now adjusted the list to include deer, elk, cottontail rabbit, black tailed jack rabbit, squirrels, chipmunk, fish, amphibians, raptors, migratory birds, bobcat, coyote, cougar, cattle and sheep. Please advise me if additional species need to be dropped or added. Thanks, Jody
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Jody, Nice to see a good riparian project in the mix. I would agree with Stan that it is a lot harder to rank your project without a shape file uploaded to the database and an idea of how many acres are being treated. A few comments/suggestions: I would highly suggest reviewing the new FY2020 score sheet available on the WRI web site as it has several new scoring criteria. For example the Threats and Risks Section has been changed to Ecological thresholds. The SGCN and HIG species sections have a new Quality, Need Benefit component to be addressed in the project need/objectives section. There is also a new watershed health category and a "other sustainable Uses" category, which is to be addressed in the Domestic Livestock benefit section. I would also review the WAP Threat definitions as I am unclear on how this project helps to alleviate the Agricultural / Municipal / Industrial Water Usage threat as described in the WAP. Similarly I am not sure how it address the Crucial Data Gap of the Relationship Between Groundwater and Surface Water. I would suggest adding Aquatic Scrub Shrub as a habitat and addressing threats to that ecotype. I would also review the partnerships section and Future Management Sections of the score sheet to see what rankers are supposed to be looking for in those sections. What is livestock use and ownership of the area to be treated? The Relationship to Management Plans Section is supposed to tie objectives from Management Plans to your project. RO removal will likely have a host of water quality and stream habitat benefits not listed in your proposal. You might want to check out past and current ERWP proposals for information. Pretty sure there is a TMDL on Salina Creek that this project may contribute to load reductions for.
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jody Gale
Mike, Thank you for your questions and suggestions. I am not yet very experienced with the application web site and I initially submitted an image of the map instead of the map. I have now corrected the omission and have submitted a map polygon. I hope it meets your needs and that of the other reviewers. I just discovered this evening that I have misread the email from Vicky regarding the final day to respond to comments was yesterday the 24th instead of today. My fault. My apology. This past several weeks have been very hectic and I did not budget enough time for our WRI application. I will rewrite the application and resubmit for the next funding cycle to address your questions and suggestions. Thank you for your help. Jody
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
I too agree that the species list is a bit large. There are a couple of those that may reduce their use of the are when the russian olives are removed.
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jody Gale
Scott, I developed the initial list with input from Kreig Rasmussen and Kendall Bagley. I have now adjusted the list to include deer, elk, cottontail rabbit, black tailed jack rabbit, squirrels, chipmunk, fish, amphibians, raptors, migratory birds, bobcat, coyote, cougar, cattle and sheep. Please advise me if additional species need to be dropped or added. Thanks, Jody
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
Jody, You mentioned this WRI funding being used as match. If so shouldn't it be reflected in the finance page to demonstrate. If applicable it helps demonstrate partnerships and showing match is always good. This is a good project and would like to help out where I can. I plan on looking on some private property in a couple tributaries this year for RO and potentially doing some sort of stream restoration too. Let me know and I would be willing help out on the proposal process in the future.
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jody Gale
Clint, I have made that adjustment in the budget. I did listed the ISM and SRS $59,500 in the "description", but not as other in the budget. I was unsure of the appropriate way to list it because it is a separate project (phase II) being contracted through WRI. Thanks Jody
Comment 02/21/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Jody, you list a lot of risks/threats to riverine habitat, which I do not think this project will address. The new ranking critieria will look at tying the project to the actual lists/threats that will be mitigated by the actions proposed. Please take a look at this, and the new ranking criteria and modify accordingly. The ranking criteria is available on the WRI about us page, at the very bottom. Thanks! Sounds like a great project!
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jody Gale
Vicki, Thank you for your questions and suggestions. I just discovered this evening that I have misread your email regarding the final day to respond to comments was yesterday the 24th instead of today. My fault. My apology. This past several weeks have been very hectic and I did not budget enough time for our WRI application. I will rewrite the application and resubmit for the next funding cycle to address your questions and suggestions. Thank you for your help. Jody
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
8104 Affected Area
Project Map
Project Map