The Lower White River is home to many native fishes, is frequently used by endangered big river fishes of the Colorado River basin, has some of the best remaining cottonwood galleries and in-stream habitat across the tributaries of the Green and Colorado rivers. Due in large part to its relatively natural flow regime, the Lower White River maintains a high level of ecological integrity. However, non-native and invasive Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) are expanding throughout the riverscape. These invasive plants degrade native plant communities and wildlife habitat by creating dense monocultures, preventing native plants from establishing or re-establishing along the riparian corridor. The impacts from these infestations also 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 that 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. These channel changes also disconnect the stream from the riparian zone reducing the amount of floodplain and backwater habitat available to juvenile fish; backwater zones are important habitats for 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. Follow-up treatments of re-sprouts and secondary weeds are often necessary to maintain restoration trajectory.

Much restoration work in the Lower White River has focused on reduction of invasive tamarisk and Russian olive monocultures in riparian areas, particularly in close proximity to mature cottonwoods. Using a combination of multiple expert field assessments along with data on fish, riparian vegetation, and in-stream habitat complexity, we developed a holistic conservation, restoration, and monitoring plan for the Lower White River which, along with conservation of natural flows, will contribute to maintaining the high ecological integrity of the riverscape. Our objective for this proposal is to begin implementing the plan to achieve our broader objectives for the Lower White River: 1) Conserve necessary and sufficient habitat to allow for thriving native fish, vegetation communities, and riparian dependent animal species. 2) Conserve natural habitat-forming processes, such as lateral channel movement, beaver activity, and inputs of large wood. 3) Restore channel width to areas of the riverscape which have experienced narrowing from unnatural vegetation encroachment. 4) Restore riparian vegetation communities to a more natural and less invaded state. 5) Maintain restoration progress achieved through previous WRI projects. 6) Conduct sufficient monitoring of conservation and restoration actions to quantitatively assess whether these actions are accomplishing the objectives and determine the causes of success or failure.

The continued expansion and dominance of Russian olive and tamarisk in plant communities along the White River reduce 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 and other wildlife species that utilize the riparian corridor. 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. The lower White River is an ideal location for conservation and restoration, because it currently supports robust populations of native fishes and native vegetation and has abundant complex instream habitat; however, it has been degraded by altered riparian vegetation communities, and faces future threats from continued water development, further expansion of nonnative species, and climate change induced reductions in flow.

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 plan's 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 populations 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, bonytail, 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 populations of each species. State of Utah Resource Management Plan: This project helps meet 3 Riparian Area Objectives (p191) "Active management should be used to improve and enhance riparian resources to provide for appropriate physical, biological, and chemical function 2) "Prioritize and manage riparian areas to attain desired future conditions for riparian-related resources" 3) "Riparian areas and wetlands should be managed for the mutual and maximum benefit of wildlife, livestock and special status species." Uintah County Resource Management Plan (p52): 20.4.1 Inventory and map riparian areas so that appropriate measures can be taken to protect or avoid impacts to them, when possible, 20.4.2 Conserve and protect riparian areas through application of best management practices, 20.4.3 Participate in state, federal and local riparian planning opportunities, 20.4.4 Support the eradication of invasive species which can degrade habitat value and impact groundwater levels, 20.4.7 Use scientific methodology to guide management decisions in riparian areas

Russian olives 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 this will reduce the likelihood and intensity of 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: Tamarisk brings up salts from the soil and deposits them on the surface, which can impact water quality by increasing water salinity levels. Tamarisk and Russian olive removal can also act as a preventative water quality improvement tool by reducing the risk of severe wildfire, which causes runoff and erosion that is detrimental to water quality. Furthermore, studies have shown that native riparian species, particularly sandbar willow, can improve water quality by removing pharmaceuticals and other contaminants. Water Quantity: Tamarisk and Russian olive may not transpire significantly more water than native riparian plant species on a plant-to-plant comparison. However, as tamarisk frequently persists in greater densities than native vegetation and on sites that are higher above the water table and too dry for most native riparian species, tamarisk can increase the density and areal extent of transpiring vegetation and total transpiration-related water losses. Furthermore, tamarisk and Russian olive are often found in densities that far exceed those observed in native vegetation stands. Therefore, at a landscape scale, water savings could be accomplished through the replacement of tamarisk and Russian olive with native riparian and upland species. Additionally, this project is in drinking water surface protection zone 3 for the Green River (System #08005)

NEPA was completed by the VFO BLM in December 2014, included in the NEPA are avoidance measures for Wildlife, Botany, Archeology and Cultural resources. A Pesticide Use Proposal will be issued for the application of herbicides.

Our assessment of the current conditions in the lower White River, along with the current state of the science on vegetation encroachment in arid-land rivers (see attached plan and references therein), has identified key geomorphic and biological features that are threatened by future degradation, and if conserved, will likely increase the river's ability to maintain a complex and dynamic state within the confines of climate change effects on flows. We identified priority conservation and restoration reaches by developing a detailed model of vegetation that classified native vs. non-native vegetation. We conducted multiple field visits and used expert opinion to validate the model. We also used riverscape characteristics from the Valley Bottom Extraction Tool (VBET) (http://rcat.riverscapes.xyz/) to identify reaches based on geomorphic breaks (primarily changes in valley width), geologic transitions, measures of instream habitat complexity (e.g., instream large wood density), and a strong gradient in riparian vegetation density. Based on these criteria, we identified four major reaches (a figure showing the 4 reaches has been added to the website). The annual treatment methods will be based on the predicted type of flow year. (e.g., subsequent years of back-to-back low flows, years with predicted average spring flows, or years with predicted above average spring flows). Details of the flow years can be found in the recommended actions section of the attached restoration plan Pages 39,40. Following is a summary of the methods. Details of the treatment methods can be found on pages 41-45 of the restoration plan. Because 2021 was a low flow year and soil moisture conditions were below average going into the winter of 2022, we are planning treatments based on either a low flow or average flow year in 2023. Thus in high priority reaches, the following actions will be implemented based on the restoration plan. Objective: Reduce further channel narrowing Potential treatments Mechanical removal and basal spraying (i.e., weed-whacking, brush hog, etc.) of young, establishing vegetation on bar features (point bars, bank attached bars) within the active channel, if runoff is predicted to be below bankfull discharge in the current year and was below bankfull discharge the previous year (i.e., back-to-back low flow years) Experimental design: We identified 40 bar features that occur on BLM-managed land in Reaches 1 and upper Reach 2 (see attached shapefiles for locations of bar features). We randomly assigned five treatments to bar features: 1) removal of all vegetation (native and nonnative) with basal spraying (n=9) 2) removal of all vegetation with lopping or cutting (n=9) 3) removal of just nonnative vegetation with basal spraying (n=9) 4) removal of just nonnative vegetation with lopping or cutting (n=9) 5) control (no removal), and monitor control bars to quantify composition of vegetation community colonizing depositional bar features (n=4) This experimental design allows us to assess efficacy (and efficiency) of different treatment types and methodologies of vegetation removal on bar features. The controls allow us to monitor the types of vegetation colonizing these geomorphic features over shorter temporal scales (within years), and also allow us to assess the effects of our experimental treatments on preventing further channel narrowing over longer temporal scales (among years) and multiple phases of the project. Objective: Promote continued recruitment of large wood into the active channel Potential treatments Whole tree removal of Russian olive within 30 m of the active channel where the river is contacting high terraces (i.e., biological linkage areas) Whole tree removal will likely have the most ecological and geomorphic benefits, but site access will likely dictate use of heavy equipment. Some alternative treatments are: Stump cuts or Stump cuts and stump grinding with compact equipment (motorized winch for whole tree removal) We will move removed Russian olive trees and any large fallen trees on terraces to the floodplain and as close to the active channel as possible. Trees need to be placed as close to the active channel as possible to ensure a high probability of coming in contact with spring floods, even during lower-flow years. In addition to the methods outlined in the plan we will also maintain the restoration progress accomplished through earlier WRI projects on the White River through monitoring, treating regrowth/resprouts/secondary invasive weeds as needed, and reseed and/or planting native forbs, shrubs, and trees where passive recruitment is not meeting site goals. Finally, we will also conduct a pilot study to assess the current population size of beaver. Beavers are ecosystem engineers that create and maintain complex riverine habitat critical for native fishes and other riparian plants and animals. The White River appears to have considerable beaver activity, primarily in the form of beaver felling large cottonwoods into the river. The beavers appear to be primarily bank/side channel dam building beavers, or hybrid bank partial dam building beavers. Beaver translocation (nuisance beavers) may be a future option for conservation and restoration, but this consideration will require an estimate of the current beaver population relative to their likely carrying capacity. We ran the Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool (BRAT), a stream network model that estimates dam building beaver capacity, across the lower White River. The model outputs suggest the lower White River riparian corridor contains suitable and preferred vegetation for beaver and beaver dam building. However, the high stream power of the White River limits beaver dams from being built and persisting over time. Because it is unclear what the current population size of beaver is in the study area, we will explore using individual genotypes from beaver scat, hair, or chewed logs to do a mark-recapture population estimate. For samples, we will explore using scat, hair snag traps, and visual assessments of beaver chewed cottonwoods. Preliminary assessments indicate the beaver chewed logs are easily identified and abundant in the White River. Pilot study samples will be collected on trip 1 (mark) and 3 (recapture) as described (above). Samples will be run for 6-8 microsatellites (actual # depends on polymorphism of each loci), in triplicate since they are noninvasive samples. The pilot study will determine If individuals can be successfully identified, and if new individuals can be successfully encountered on subsequent surveys. If successful, we will expand the effort as part of future work and will add in using scat hunting dogs to assist in scat collection. We will assume the population is closed over this interval and estimate the population size using a relevant mark capture model in Program Mark. The population estimate will be compared to the BRAT estimates and useful in calibrating BRAT. The population estimate will also be compared to other estimates from the literature, to gauge the population size relative to the likely carrying capacity of the beaver population. We propose to conduct three project trips in 2022-2023: River trip 1 (June/July 2022): We will: 1. Collect drone imagery of vegetation treatment areas (bar features, whole tree removal polygons) to capture pre-restoration conditions, 2. Establish repeat photo locations, 3. Collect the first round of ground photos, 4. Test and modify our vegetation monitoring protocol to assess treatment effectiveness, 5. Field validate access points for heavy equipment for whole tree removal at Southam Canyon and Asphalt Wash, 6. Test the feasibility of whole tree (Russian olive) removal using a motorized winch, pulleys and land anchors, 7. Test the feasibility of beaver mimicry at the biologic linkages by felling trees as large woody debris inputs, and 8. Collect beaver scat, hair, or chewed logs samples for mark-recapture population estimate. River trip 2 (early fall 2022): We will: 1. Train Utah Conservation Corps (UCC) crews on vegetation removal on bar features, 2. Train UCC crews on vegetation monitoring protocol (as developed in trip 1), 3. Maintain treatment areas from prior restoration phases, 4. Be on site with the mechanical whole tree removal contractor to ensure project objectives are being met, 5. Continue to refine monitoring approach, 6. Continue testing whole tree removal using motorized winch, and 7. Continue testing beaver mimicry by felling trees as large woody debris inputs. River trip 3 (late fall 2022 or early spring 2023): We will: 1. Collect drone imagery of vegetation treatment areas to capture post-treatment conditions, 2. Collect repeat ground photos to capture post treatment conditions, 3. Continue to refine monitoring approach, 4. Continue testing whole tree removal using motorized winch, 5. Continue testing beaver mimicry by felling trees as large woody debris inputs, and 6. Collect beaver scat, hair, or chewed logs samples for mark-recapture population estimate. Post processing of field data: After each river trip drone imagery, geo tagged photos, vegetation data, and beaver samples will be uploaded, compiled, and analyzed. The drone imagery will be analyzed to determine percent vegetative cover per data capture event. Repeat ground photos will be paired together to visualize vegetation change pre- and post-treatment. Pre-treatment and post-treatment vegetation surveys will be processed to show vegetation changes associated with treatment. Beaver samples will be processed as part of the mark recapture study. Associated completion report with high quality figures, tables, and graphics will be produced and uploaded to the WRI website.

Monitoring is an essential component of successful ecological restoration and adaptive management (Palmer et al. 2005), because it provides information on the effectiveness of restoration actions, and if done properly, information on why actions were or were not effective. Restoration can be viewed as an ecological experiment (Palmer et al. 1997), and proper monitoring thus advances river science and the practice of river restoration in general. Full details of the monitoring can be found in the monitoring recommendations section of the attached restoration plan pages 46-49 but in summary are as follows: We will monitor experimental treatments on bar features using drone imagery and repeat photos points as mentioned above in the Methods section. We will also monitor vegetation establishment on control bar features using a rapid assessment protocol that will be finalized after the first trip and will be used to assess which plant species are colonizing these features. Two Utah Department of Water Quality monitoring stations have been reactivated through coordination with UDEQ and BLM; one near the highway 45 bridge (ID 4933970), the other above the confluence with Bitter Creek (ID 4933780). The BLM has conducted 5 surveys in the project area using their Assessment Inventory, and Monitoring protocol (AIM). These surveys gather quantitative chemical, physical, and biological data within a statistically valid framework. These surveys can be repeated in future years as part of a larger long term monitoring effort. Monitoring and implementation planning are accomplished during coordinated site visits by project manager and partners, using boats to access the majority of sites. Photos and drone imagery from implementation and monitoring activities will be organized with captions and uploaded to the WRI website.

UDWR, USFWS, and BLM staff have contributed data and subject matter expertise to USU's conservation, restoration and monitoring plan. Water quality monitoring has been established with UDEQ. SITLA is engaged and grants Range Improvement Project (RIP) permit to conduct restoration activities on its White River riparian properties. All project contributors (BLM, REW, SITLA, USU) participate in the White River Partnership (WRP), which has a memorandum of understanding among 14 federal, state, county, city, and nonprofit entities supportive of riparian restoration activities in the White River basin in Utah and Colorado. REW continues outreach, coordination, and engagement with partners upriver and downriver of the proposed project area. This coordination increases the likelihood of long-term project success through landscape-scale connectivity of restoration projects, improved communication among partners and stakeholders, and consistent restoration, monitoring, and site management practices.

The project is part of a multi-year effort to improve the health and resiliency of aquatic, riparian, and floodplain ecosystems along the lower White River. Future actions will prioritize 1) Restoring and maintaining wildlife habitat through increasing riparian vegetation communities comprised primarily of diverse, native plant species, 2) Maintaining and re-establishing natural river functions (e.g. floodplain connection, large woody material inputs) and complex fish habitat, and 3) Maintaining the restoration progress and investment made in previous years through site maintenance and follow-up treatments. Potential future management actions are outlined in the Conservation, Restoration and Monitoring Plan for the Lower White River (see "Documents" section). Specific management actions will be informed by current year waterflow, previous year water flow, and monitoring results. For example, as stated previously, in years with back-to-back low flows, restoration efforts will focus on removing new growth from within the active channel to prevent their establishment and likelihood of channelizing that section of river. Outreach and engagement within the watershed in Utah and Colorado will also continue to bring additional partners to the table and increase project impact and communication at the watershed scale.

Tamarisk and Russian olive infestations 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 these efforts are expected to achieve. Removing invasive woody vegetation will facilitate the re-establishment 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 and shrubs in selected areas where native grasses are sparse in habitat adjacent to treatment sites. Control of tamarisk can simplify livestock management. 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. Project managers work with lessees and private landowners to achieve sustainable levels of vegetation management and biomass utilization. Additionally, grazing and animal distribution will increase since more river bank is accessible for watering livestock and wildlife. Monocultures of tamarisk and Russian Olive can impede access to the river and recreational activities. Thick tamarisk and Russian olive stands will be targeted for removal so that access to the river will be enhanced, providing a better experience for people looking for lesser-known public lands where they can enjoy solitude hiking, camping, or floating along the river. Providing access to quality recreational areas is critical to the sustainability of recreation on public lands. Additionally, numerous birds and amphibians can be found and heard along the riparian area. This project creates access into these areas for non-consumptive wildlife users.

07/01/2022

06/30/2025

2025

UCC Utah Conservation Corps (UCC) crews treated infestations of invasive Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) on 63.57 acres of riparian habitat along the White River, improving 2.79 river miles. UCC crews employed two vegetation treatment methods. On point bar features, all woody vegetation was cleared using chainsaws and brushcutters; herbicide was applied to cut invasive woody plants (e.g., Russian olive). On river bank features invasive woody vegetation was treated using the cut-stump method. Triclopyr 3a was the herbicide used for both treatment types. Bank treatments did not generally extend beyond 30m from the river's edge. Crews camped on site for 8-day hitches and accessed the project areas with trucks, hiking, and rafts. Hitches began April 26, 2023 and ended July 3, 2023. These methods are a shift from previous phases of the project which also focused on invasive removal but were focused in native cottonwood galleries and included the full extent of the riparian area, in addition to bank treatments. This project's treatments follow the Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan for the Lower White River, Utah (Pennock et al., 2022), an adaptive management plan aimed at conserving and restoring complex instream habitat and healthy riparian vegetation communities. Prior to the UCC crews starting, USU, OSU, UCC staff, and REW floated the focus area to monitor previous treatments, test new treatment methods, and identify treatment areas. REW RiversEdge West (REW) published the 2022 White River Partnership (WRP) Annual Report in April 2023, highlighting landscape-scale collaborative efforts to improve riparian health in the White River watershed. REW hosted and facilitated a WRP partnership meeting online on November 2, 2023 to share project updates among partners. REW integrated invasive plant treatment data from this project with previous years' data and adjacent projects into the larger White River Partnership interactive map (link: https://arcg.is/1mnWO0). BLM BLM coordinated with Utah DWR's heavy equipment crew to obtain equipment for mechanical treatments through the WRI agreement with Utah DNR. Through the use of a track hoe and experienced operators, cleared an approximately 50-meter-wide swath along the river on the southwest side Southam Canyon, which is approximately .64 miles of riverbank. Both DWR and BLM operators and equipment were utilized. Tamarisk and Russian olive were the focus vegetation, and any willow or cottonwood were left untouched. After that BLM prioritized clearing around cottonwood trees as an ecological restoration tactic to free up some resources for them. About 70-75 large piles were made, some of which will be carried away if flows get high enough, and the rest we will either burn or leave for wildlife habitat in future projects. We spread some of the native seed mix we had left over from the Great Basin Research Center, and ordered more seed to re-seed the entire treated area. BLM also coordinated with UCC crews to apply beaver deterrent paint on the remaining cottonwood trees that were exposed through the removal of invasives. USU & OSU USU and OSU helped train the UCC crew for point bar vegetation removal (April 26 - 29, 2023). USU prioritized treatments on point bars to prevent the growth and encroachment of Russian olive within the active channel zone that have been exposed during low water years to try to reduce channel narrowing. To determine treatment efficacy of point bar vegetation removal USU monitored changes to active channel widths and vegetation coverage at vegetation treatments and control reaches. This was accomplished using two drone imagery surveys (pre-restoration: April 19-22, 2023 & post-restoration: August 8-11, 2023). We found that the prolonged high flows during spring/summer 2023 have led to: channel movement and widening, flushing of fine sediments, scouring of encroaching woody vegetation, and lateral interactions with the floodplain both in vegetation treatment areas and control reaches suggesting that high flows are the key ingredient to ensuring that the channel does not narrow. See the channel migration April 2023 - August 2023 figure for a visual representation of this documented channel movement and widening. We are exploring different approaches to estimating natural beaver density, habitat use, and carrying capacity in the lower White River, Utah. We used satellite imagery to identify sandbars across the specified reach and randomly selected sandbars as sample sites. We sampled 12 sandbars in 2023, 48 sandbars in 2024, and 32 sandbars in 2025. We conducted beaver activity surveys on the White River, UT, in 2023 (pilot), 2024, and 2025 during baseflow conditions following runoff. We developed custom field surveys (via the Survey123 mobile app; MacFarlane et al. 2023) to quantify beaver activity and sign. We reported beaver activity presence/absence, beaver sign type, beaver sign quantity, beaver sign location, and beaver sign age with custom digital surveys. To inform future population estimates and demographic analyses, we also deployed camera traps and hair snares at a subset of three survey locations in 2024.

This is part of a multi-year effort involving multiple partners including BLM, SITLA, Conservation Corps, USU, OSU, RiversEdge West, and UDWR. The continued expansion and dominance of Russian olive and tamarisk in plant communities along the White River reduce 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 and other wildlife species that utilize the riparian corridor. Methods have evolved over phases of the project but the overall goals of the project remain to 1) establish self-sustaining healthy vegetation communities in the riparian areas of the White River consisting of mostly native plant species that provide habitat and food sources for wildlife; 2) to maintain and/or re-establish the natural channel morphology of the White River to benefit native fish, including T&E species and 3) reduce the risk of wildfire in the riparian zone, particularly in the cottonwood gallery forests. Following the Conservation, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan for the Lower White River, Utah (Pennock et al., 2022), methods during this phase focused on removing invasive vegetation on banks and point bars to encourage river movements to maintain and reestablish complex instream habitat. In addition, to date, there have been very few accurate population estimates of beavers in Utah and even fewer empirical estimates of carrying capacity. Further, the widely applied BRAT model, used to predict beaver capacity and prioritize beaver-driven restoration, has not been calibrated or validated. This is in part because traditional mark/recapture techniques do not work with beaver as they are extremely trap shy (unlikely to ever be recaptured after first capture). In addition, beavers are difficult to observe because they are nocturnal and spend much of their time underwater or in lodges and banks. They also typically avoid humans much like they would avoid wild predators because of our historical and current harvest activity. Thus, obtaining density estimates and carrying capacity will likely require our use of novel, noninvasive sampling techniques. Coordinating this project with the White River Partnership supports the watershed scale collaborative efforts across jurisdictional boundaries needed for successful invasive plant and river health projects. WRP also provides opportunities for sharing lessons learned and project successes, leveraging resources, and identifying potential partners. The WRP online map hosts a record of riparian restoration actions across the White River watershed that is available to partners and interested members of the public (https://arcg.is/1mnWO0).

Future phases will be managed adaptively based on Pennock et al. (2022) including current year waterflow, previous year waterflow, monitoring results, and site-specific conditions. Restoration implementation locations are also determined by accessibility via roads and flows for raft-access sites. We will continue to explore large-wood addition mimicking beavers, but have been unsuccessful in getting permitting to date. Since many sites are remote, revegetation will likely occur via seeding. Seed mix is developed in coordination between BLM and DWR to benefit pollinators and shrub/tree species that benefit mammals and turkeys (e.g., Golden currant, serviceberry, chokecherry). Landscape-scale coordination and communication with other partners/stakeholders in the White River basin will continue through the White River Partnership.