HomeMy WebLinkAbout20082914.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND AGREEMENT FOR
MANAGING NOXIOUS WEEDS AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - SOUTH PLATTE
RIVER WATERSHED WEED MANAGEMENT AREA
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with Standard Operation Procedures and
Agreement for Managing Noxious Weeds between the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and
through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,on behalf of the Department of Public
Works, and the South Platte River Watershed Weed Management Area, commencing upon full
execution, and ending December 31, 2013, with further terms and conditions being as stated in
said operation procedures and agreement, and
WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said operation
procedures and agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the Standard Operation Procedures and Agreement for Managing Noxious
Weeds between the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County,on behalf of the Department of Public Works,and the South Platte
River Watershed Weed Management Area, be, and hereby is, approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized to
sign said agreement to collaborate.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by
the following vote on the 3rd day of November, A.D., 2008.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
' WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:
zi—
ff y ' ) William H. Jerke, Chair
Weld County Clerk to ttie Bard x4. ` � \�
\\ Robert DM sden, P o-Tem
BY:
Deputy Cler o the Board
Wil F. Garcia
APP D ORM: C(
David E. Long TI
County Attorney ccaoQ<,w.a.�/l.,✓-
f. Z47Dougla adema her
Date of signature: 41
2008-2914
EG0044
0 0 Pc.J C-N3) // —2W -dg
Kita
MEMORANDUM
1111De. TO: Clerk to the Board DATE: October 29, 2008
COLORADO FROM: Tina Booton, Public Work —T-t, �
SUBJECT: Agenda Item
Weld County is one of nine Counties that are working to develop a South Platte River
Watershed plan to address salt cedar and Russian olive.Part of this"PIE" plan is to establish
a formal South Platte River Watershed Weed Management Area.This is a group of individuals
and organizations who are active in managing the South Platte Watershed.
The signed formal agreement shows support of the project and continued involvement with the
process. The first goal of the WMA is to address salt cedar and Russian olive. Other weed
species may be addressed at a future date.The WMA will be in effect for 5 years,with optional
continuation.
Attached is the five page agreement along with the signature page. I request that this
agreement be signed showing the support of Weld County for this project and the efforts to
address salt cedar and Russian olive.
-.)
j'1
2008-2914
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER
WATERSHED WEED MANAGEMENT AREA
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
AND
AGREEMENT FOR MANAGING NOXIOUS WEEDS
NAME AND ESTABLISHMENT
The name of this organization is SOUTH PLATTE RIVER WATERSHED WEED
MANAGEMENT AREA, hereafter referred to as the "South Platte River WMA". The South
Platte River Watershed Weed Management Area was established in 2008.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this organization is to form partnerships in order to raise awareness of noxious
weeds through education and to identify, contain, and control the spread of noxious weeds
throughout the South Platte River watershed region. This Agreement is made and entered into by
and between the entities listed in the section entitled "Cooperator Signatures and Summary of
Cooperating Entities" to provide procedures and direction for the control of declared noxious
weed species on lands within the South Platte River watershed region, including, but not limited
to, the nine (9) counties of Denver, Adams, Boulder, Larimer, Morgan, Logan, Washington,
Sedgwick and Weld.
MUTUAL BENEFITS
This Agreement will provide an efficient means of handling, controlling, and communicating
about noxious weed management in the South Platte River watershed region. The named
cooperating entities have noxious weed control responsibilities and interests on adjacent and
commingled lands in the South Platte River Watershed WMA. Each of the signed cooperating
entities has access to financial resources for the management of noxious weeds and/or maintains
equipment and personnel for the purpose of controlling noxious weeds within its own
jurisdiction. Uncontrolled weed populations in neighboring jurisdictions greatly affect the ability
of land managers to control weeds on lands they administer. The signed cooperators desire to
come together in a formal manner and promote an integrated weed management program
throughout the South Platte River Watershed WMA including the sharing of concerns,
knowledge, and resources and the coordination of weed management methods and control
efforts.
South Platte River Watershed WMA 1 /5
All entities will benefit from a coordinated effort in controlling noxious weeds regionally
through integrated weed management. The public will benefit from the control and/or
elimination of noxious weeds by avoiding the negative impacts of these undesirable plants on the
economy and to natural resources. Furthermore, this Agreement advances compliance with
pertinent federal and state laws regarding noxious weeds. The South Platte River Watershed
WMA will facilitate the necessary communication, cooperation, and coordination among all land
managers and landowners to identify and manage noxious weed species within the upper South
Platte River watershed region.
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the South Platte River Watershed WMA is to develop and implement a
coordinated strategic weed management plan involving a partnership between counties and
associated municipalities, state and federal agencies, and private citizens and organizations to
implement an integrated weed management effort using all available methods and to coordinate,
prioritize, and direct the efficient use of resources to protect, manage, and enhance plant and
animal communities.
NOXIOUS WEED DESIGNATION
The Rules Pertaining to the Administration and Enforcement of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act
(8 CCR 1203-19) identifies and prioritizes state noxious weed species. The South Platte River
Watershed WMA will act in accordance with state law when identifying priority noxious weed
species for control within the South Platte River watershed region.
MEMBERSHIP
1) Membership in the South Platte River Watershed WMA is open to government and non-
government individuals and entities located within or having interests in any or all of the
counties of Denver, Adams, Boulder, Larimer, Logan, Morgan, Sedgwick, Washington and
Weld. The South Platte River Watershed WMA will not limit the number of members in this
organization.
2) Membership will consist of signed cooperators (signatories of this Agreement) and sustaining
partners (private individuals or organizations that have vested interests in the South Platte
River Watershed WMA and, although not signatories of this Agreement, provide significant
additional resources to integrated weed management in the South Platte River Watershed
WMA).
3) Membership in the South Platte River Watershed WMA is voluntary and will not have an
expiration date. No membership dues will be assessed.
South Platte River Watershed WMA 2/5
STEERING COMMITTEE AND OFFICERS
1) A Steering Committee will be comprised of signed cooperators and sustaining partners. Any
member may serve on the Steering Committee and hold office. Participation on the Steering
Committee will be voluntary.
2) From the Steering Committee, a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Recorder, will be
designated. The Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Recorder will be elected by majority
vote at the first Steering Committee meeting of the calendar year. Terms of office will be for
one year, effective immediately upon appointment. If the office of the Chairperson is vacated
for any reason, the Vice-Chairperson will assume the duties of Chairperson for the balance of
the term. All other vacancies will be filled by a majority vote of members present at a regular
meeting.
MEETINGS
1) Regular Steering Committee meetings will be held as deemed necessary by the Chairperson
or Steering Committee majority, with a prior prepared agenda and purpose. Any member
may bring topics forward to the Steering Committee to be added to a meeting agenda.
Meeting announcements that include time, place, and agenda will be distributed at least two
weeks prior to the meeting.
2) Committees may be formed at the discretion of the Chairperson.
3) An annual conference will be held each year in November.
STEERING COMMITTEE DUTIES
The South Platte River Watershed WMA Steering Committee will:
1) Develop and maintain a noxious weed strategic management plan that defines long term
South Platte River Watershed WMA objectives.
2) Render decisions and guide the South Platte River Watershed WMA activities in accordance
with this Agreement and the Strategic Management Plan.
3) Develop the South Platte River Watershed WMA annual work plans and meet to develop and
implement its activities.
4) Identify sources of funding and resources for noxious weed management.
5) Identify and prioritize noxious weed species and project areas within the South Platte River
Watershed WMA and coordinate weed control efforts between appropriate entities.
South Platte River Watershed WMA 3 /5
6) Develop, promote, and implement an integrated management system for target weed species
using all available methods, including consideration of: the most efficient and effective
method of preventing, detecting, removing, containing or controlling noxious weed species;
scientific evidence and current technology; the physiology and habitat of a plant species; the
economic, social, and ecological consequences of implementing the program; economic
considerations; and environmental considerations.
7) Generate annual reports of the South Platte River Watershed WMA accomplishments.
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
The South Platte River Watershed WMA Strategic Management Plan will be kept as a separate
dynamic document that addresses strategic issues, goals, objectives, and tasks.
ANNUAL WORK PLAN
On or before March 1st of each year, the South Platte River Watershed WMA Steering
Committee will meet for the purpose of preparing an Annual Work Plan. The Annual Work Plan
will identify work to be accomplished, work schedules, roles and responsibilities, etc. Each
cooperating entity will designate a project coordinator in the Annual Work Plan.
COOPERATIVE SUPPORT
This Agreement is unfunded. When funding is provided to individual entities, it will be from
collaboratively obtained monies (grants and other sources) and in accordance with agreed upon
terms. Entities will be expected to provide available resources in order to reach agreed upon
cross-jurisdictional weed management goals. Such resources include, but are not limited to,
funds, personnel, equipment, materials, and vehicles.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION
Title to equipment and/or supplies acquired by the South Platte River Watershed WMA under
this Agreement will vest in the South Platte River Watershed WMA upon acquisition. The
Cooperative will be responsible for repair and maintenance of shared equipment.
FINANCIAL ENTITY
Weld County Government will serve as the fund manager of all incoming funds (from grants and
other sources) received by the South Platte River Watershed WMA until the funds are dispersed
to the individual entities in accordance with previously agreed upon terms. The fund manager
can be changed by a majority vote of the signed cooperators, or representatives thereof, present
at a regular meeting, if due notice of changes is followed, including the issuance of a written
modification to all signed cooperators, prior to any changes being performed.
South Platte River Watershed WMA 4/5
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1) It is recognized that each cooperator has primary responsibility to its own governing body
and lands under its jurisdiction. It is agreed to provide resources to each other as legal
authorities may permit.
2) All cooperators will be responsible and accountable for their own funds, equipment, and
personnel.
3) This Agreement in no way restricts cooperators from participating in similar activities with
other public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals.
MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS
Changes to this document may be proposed by any member or cooperating entity. This document
may be altered or amended by a majority of the signed cooperators, or representatives thereof,
present at a regular meeting, if due notice of changes is followed, including the issuance of a
written modification to all signed cooperators, prior to any changes being performed.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
1) The cooperator has the legal authority to enter into this Agreement.
2) This Agreement is effective for five (5) years, through December 31, 2013, at which time it
is subject to renewal or expiration.
3) Cooperators, by written modification to this Agreement, may extend the term for subsequent
performance periods not to exceed a total duration of five years from the expiration date of
this Agreement, including the subsequent performance periods.
4) Any cooperating entity may terminate this Agreement at any time before the date of
expiration by providing 30 days written notice of such termination to the other cooperating
entities.
SIGNATURES OF COOPERATING ENTITIES
Attached at the end of this document are pages are entitled "Agreement to Collaborate in the
South Platte River Watershed Weed Management Area". On these subsequent pages (one entity
per page), each entity will acknowledge their agreement to collaborate in the South Platte River
Watershed WMA. All original cooperator signature sheets are to be kept collectively with the
original Agreement by the South Platte River Watershed WMA.
South Platte River Watershed WMA 5 /5
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER
WATERSHED WEED MANAGEMENT AREA
AGREEMENT TO COLLABORATE IN THE
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER WATERSHED WEED MANAGEMENT
AREA
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
Nov o 3 zone
(
Signature Date
Please print or type:
Entity: Weld County, Colorado
Entity Representative: William N. .Terke
Entity Representative's Title: Chair, Board of Weld County Commissioners
Entity Contact Information: (970) 356-4000 x4200 hjerke(arn weld rn „G
RETURN COMPLETED FORMS TO:
Weld County Weed Division
PO Box 758 • Greeley, CO 80632
DRA
F I"
• EndeavorIn iPlan
atte vas ves
for the
South P Watershed 2008
:::::2 :,
,:'� h 'E,,{ -z P' f f . ,,,„:„„„,.„..... y,::,.::. ,,,:„,„„::„.:.:: ., :::,:::„:„:„.:::.„.....„ :.....:,::::..„:, .. .... ..:,„:. ,.....„:..„ , . :....., . .„:.,.... 1 k ,`• +,:.{ `aPl 1,�.„:£1 st et �1. J, #1 ', � i 11 „ „„ ,
y€t �P„,,, ? ,i. z,.:,'„,•-- .( ( „s„,„„
,, ,
• _ ( 4£ 3: 2 S
° l• {{If{Y[ ° 3� i 4.ell ':
.
•
•
•
•
•
t1 is i�_:.' "
Iv Val IJIY x �H` ♦ _ •�S1a�. a• ♦VFIw• �li-„t • •J_ . �—�—_ _ i .. • .�—.-.a:
_ r wit,...t..-:_:-::-,:;-.4::. 1 ..' }. `4.,. 'k> .1:-.:14. „-e--:„Ar..::. s,,.--,-,.,.:,..--.1... .:::::]:.*:;,...-..�, ;t 1 i
6,..--.A,-.. f 1 , 4 r i ,t �/ s r4•a s• 'P's k v 4, . ��iy - _ •- I' .
1 fi -•`1 y `y, ♦.j .�'n ��-�JJJ000�'P'� + ` y , e` '." y...... . ,���!�(��' `' i+ „e
rai. :..,
.,
. ..,...„, ..
1 ,�..• ,, �' ••4 '\ _ ,� • ^1 I. • ♦ •�, • 1 se, 1424# S'' ' .�. `�� , f. -tji • f1 :'.• £7_0"
•',s4,),•$•• , -• �. • '7�i •' .''w 'A� ��'��'•,f_— - • •' • - . -. 11 s r' , �'�' F '�}ti. f .
7 -, F: is -.:1-.,...
t., a e. •
•Y'6�'• h t 1�. •�• it •�1! •4,•' � atty��T ♦5yr • . T.� '�''{�yy • .C t. Y
�!' y'.1,wr`*x,# • A•t .?. �-...4,,,t . • t •1111` • ` • ti'CI+ • '1. I • i 1• t • rA� •.
rt •
t'• * .4. ••
a# . t. ti*•likii
_ -dfi a " mil: r � - � ti 'NI it 'ill1�� +'w `. • 1� •
1' i.. ,![_Ig'R�SI +/+r i1�E' 1i a :f it • s+ .e: a s 1 3::f a ,
^1 7 � ,y �" .f tr.•." ! ^�!' ) j.,1,1 ` 1 '♦•1 '1�y�,+ z.rs'fi ?6 t - i
1 ♦ 1 . r . ! !�' �y �. .'!.. ♦ { •• Yt , •" t R• }�"'. "
e /t 1 f 1 ' �' "+,c 1�� I a w , as^: • -Y*t'. Y „. . ,. ,i." S -• -I-Li,
T, ,T . ~ ` � . ' AAA+"'L{{{ 1 t to �'. f.a`af «lf�. 1 +. >s i I i ,tupf
_� i', W .e. • Y 5 t� . '1 � '..1 ` + - 1•A• 1• I • 1 ` • • 6� ' TAN IP-*,;•14-.0.40€.W • ms g,9::<•• Vii , *Cab ... 1 . -� .•:_ ,.w ,r.'< � _ 1 a.tt " ' •
•
Counties of: Denver, Adams, Boulder, Larimer, Weld, Logan, Morgan,
Washington, Sedgwvick
Executive Summary
The Platte Invasives Endeavor(PIE) Plan is formulated by a set of guiding principles that focus
on ecological, social-cultural, economic, education and research considerations. These guiding
principles recognize that successful riparian restoration must include: 1) all restoration
components—planning and design, control, revegetation, biomass reduction, monitoring and
long-term maintenance; 2) respect for private property rights, state water rights, existing
infrastructure, and endangered species; 3) education to gain public support and funding; 4)
research to identify the most effective and efficient techniques for restoration through the
practice of"adaptive management"; and 5)partnerships to optimize and leverage existing and
future funding.
Introduction
Platte Invasives Endeavor (PIE)—An Executive Order from the Governor created the
Colorado Watershed Assembly. From this assembly the South Platte Round Table formed with
representatives from all of the Counties involved in the South Platte Watershed. A sub-
committee broke off from the round table to address phreatophytes on the South Platte. The
phreatophyte focus was on Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and salt cedar or tamarisk
(Tamarix spp.). In conjunction with the Phreatophyte sub-committee the Weed Division
Supervisors from the Counties of Denver, Adams, Boulder, Larimer, Logan, Morgan, Sedgwick,
Washington and Weld County joined efforts in addressing the requirements of controlling the
fore mentioned species in the spring of 2008. These combined efforts have involved state and
federal agencies, local communities, private landowners, and industry.
The PIE Plan will evaluate the South Platte River and its tributaries based on the HUC codes
developed and used by USGS and EPA. This will allow us to effectively define each piece of the
river. Using the HUC codes will also allow the PIE plan to better tie in with other watershed
management efforts currently underway. The PIE plan also coordinates with the overall focuses
and goals of the Missouri River Watershed Management Coalition.
PIE Vision Statement—The overall vision of Platte Invasives Endeavor is to assist with the
restoration and maintenance of a riparian community along the South Platte River by controlling
the non-native woody species of tamarisk and Russian olive. This effort will serve to protect our
water resources, protect riparian communities and the wildlife that depend on them. It will also
protect our watershed and communities from flooding and enhance agricultural production.
This planning effort, including a comprehensive tamarisk and Russian olive inventory/mapping
component, will be finalized by the end of 2008. This information will guide restoration work for
approximately 15,000 acres of infested lands of the approximate 19,000 square miles
encompassed in the watershed of Denver, Adams, Boulder, Larimer, Logan, Morgan, Sedgwick,
Washington and Weld Counties. There is nearly 400 miles of the river system encompassed
within the 9 Counties.
PIE Strategic Plan Goals
PIE's Goals are described below with details on specific tasks that will help to achieve these
goals.
Goal 1: Ensure all management activities reflect the knowledge of experts by providing access to
research and expert advise to practitioners, and will add to this body of knowledge by capturing
and demonstrating the effects of restoration activities.
Goal 2: Develop a watershed scale strategic plan; i.e.,Platte Invasives Endeavor—A
Consolidated Non-Native Woody Invasive Species Management Plan for Colorado's South
Platte Watershed.
Goal 3: Fully fund the PIE project to control Russian olive and tamarisk infestations while re-
establishing and maintaining sustainable native plants and habitat.
Goal 4: Through education and outreach 1) heighten awareness of Russian olive and tamarisk
issues to all landowners, and 2) ensure effective, accurate and precise communication about the
project.
Goal 5: Plan and implement projects that utilize the watershed plan in effective, on-the-ground
restoration.
Long Term Objectives of PIE include:
1. Provide a mechanism for communication and coordination among diverse parties and
land managers throughout the watershed to enact the ideas set forth in the vision
statement.
2. Maintain information in one collaborative location that all South Platte Watershed Weed
Management Area members can have access to items such as smaller partnerships,
funding opportunities, intellectual and private industry resources, infestation levels,
volunteer efforts, on-the-ground project areas, and control, restoration, monitoring and
maintenance actions.
3. Support basin-wide coordination through strong"grass-roots" leadership and initiative to
successfully realize our vision.
The PIE plan will function as the backbone of future riparian restoration work within the South
Platte watershed. The plan is a collaborative document to assist in the development and
implementation of future, objective driven, restoration designs for each area within the watershed
impacted by Russian olive and tamarisk. While not the only non-native invasive species present
or the only problems impacting riparian areas, Russian olive and tamarisk serve as the"poster
children" for gaining public support.
Section 1 - Background
PIE and How it Fits with Other Planning Efforts
Effective watershed management and invasive species control efforts rely on a
coordinated approach that transcends artificial boundaries such as political
jurisdictions. However,to get one's "arms around the problem"planning efforts are
organized within the confines of political jurisdictions or at least reasonable land
masses. The PIE planning area was developed geographically to focus on the South
Platte River mainstem from the Denver area to the CO/NEB state line.
Additionally, efforts downstream from the state line to the Missouri River are being
developed by Nebraska. Other important watershed efforts are underway on the North
Platte River as well. All of these plans rely in some respect on the success of adjacent
planning activities.
Figure 1: South Platte River Watershed in Colorado and the North Platte River
Watershed in Wyoming and Nebraska.
p
Individual Counties along the Front Range in Colorado have been working on
addressing both tamarisk and Russian olive. The PIE plan helps to pull everyone's
individual work into one piece that encourages joint efforts where possible to control
these species. Future species can be added as they become issues in the future. The PIE
plan has opened doors of communications and helped form new partnerships.
Partners
➢ Cities and Towns
➢ Colorado Association of Conservation Districts
➢ CO Department of Agriculture
➢ CO Department of Transportation
➢ CO Division of Wildlife
➢ CO Department of Natural Resources
➢ CO State Parks
➢ Colorado State University
➢ CO Water Conservation Board
➢ Colorado Watershed Assembly
➢ Colorado counties of Denver,Adams, Boulder, Larimer,Weld, Logan,Morgan,Washington,and
Sedgwick
➢ The Nature Conservancy
➢ Natural Resources Conservation Service
➢ Pawnee National Grassland
➢ Tamarisk Coalition
➢ Ducks Unlimited
➢ Excel Inc.
➢ DOW
➢ Local Conservation Districts
Guiding Principles
Guiding principles provide the common ground, "the foundation," which can direct
ecological restoration efforts into the future. These guiding principles reflect a broad
agreement between PIE partner organizations, agencies, communities, and individuals
that are cooperating to develop this riparian management plan. These principles will be
adjusted and changed as needed. This community driven effort recognizes that
tamarisk and associated non-native invasive plants cause economic and
environmental harm, negatively affectpublic health and welfare, and
require active long-term management programs with sustainable
funding. Thus, the PIE partners subscribe to the following guiding
principles:
Ecological — Promoting ecological integrity, natural processes, and long term-
resiliency is important for success.
a) Where appropriate, non-native invasive vegetation will be replaced with native
plant species that can be self-sustaining.
b) Restoration will take into account the overall condition of the system, including
presence of native species, species diversity, hydrologic regime, water quality,
and wildlife habitat.
c) Best management practices utilizing Integrated Pest Management techniques will
be used and, as research and experience dictates, updated through adaptive
management.
d) Changes to hydrologic conditions can support native plant restoration efforts and
will be considered, where possible, within the constraints of state and federal
water law.
e) Efforts will be made to understand the historical, present, and future role of fire
in riparian areas.
0 The removal of tamarisk and Russian olive overstory may promote the growth of
other invasive plants. Management strategies will be developed to avoid
additional noxious plant infestations.
g) Restoration and maintenance efforts will be monitored and evaluated on an
ongoing basis to ensure effectiveness.
h) In some circumstances the protection of threatened and endangered species can
be enhanced through well planned efforts to establish native riparian
communities and restore natural processes. In areas of concern, threatened and
endangered species surveys will be encouraged.
i) If no action is taken,tamarisk and associated non-native invasive plants will
continue to spread and increase the environmental damage throughout the South
Platte River watershed.
Social-Cultural — The values of the South Platte River watershed's diverse human
communities will be supported and sustained by ecological restoration.
a) A comprehensive strategic approach throughout the watershed is important for
success. However,the South Platte River and it's tributaries are a mix of publicly
managed lands, industry owned lands, and private property. Federal land
management policy will be adhered to and private property rights,local customs,
and local uses will be respected.
b) The South Platte River has been altered by human actions to improve its
capability to store and supply water (e.g., dams, irrigation systems) for beneficial
use. Tamarisk and Russian olive control and restoration can be performed
without impeding these systems or uses. Effective control should result in
greater stream flows for both human and environmental uses.
Economic — Economic productivity is dependent on healthy ecosystems and will be
leveraged to full potential in support of long-term ecological health.
a) Existing frameworks of funding,technical assistance, and expertise will be
identified, used, and publicized to optimize resources and maximize local
effectiveness.
b) Partnerships will be developed to leverage existing and future funding.
c) Tourism, rafting, hunting, and fishing are vital economic components of the
Front Range in Colorado. Visitors come from all over the state and the country to
experience these recreational activities. Enhancing the visitor's experience and
promoting a safe recreational experience is important.
d) Private sector involvement in restoration efforts can lead to employment and
economic benefits to the local communities along the Front Range in Colorado.
Education — Public education and outreach efforts will increase the understanding of
the impacts from non-native invasive plants, safe methods for control,benefits of
restoration, and the need for appropriate levels of funding to effectively control the
problem.
a) Educational materials will be developed on all aspects of the restoration process.
This is especially important and critical for the recent release of biological control
agents.
b) Community outreach and volunteer efforts will be used to aid the public and land
owners in gaining first-hand knowledge of the problem and establishing
ownership of the solution.
c) Appropriate outreach will also be used to communicate successes and failures to
other regions and the scientific community.
Research — Research can provide mechanisms to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of restoration actions.
a) Universities and federal and state agencies will be encouraged to use riparian
restoration efforts along the South Platte River as"living laboratories"to monitor
changes and provide scientific support to enhance success.
b) To improve management decisions, data from inventories, monitoring, and
control actions will be comparable (standardized and consistent) and shared at
all levels.
c) Performance measures for all phases of the restoration effort will include
quantifiable units (e.g., acres treated and restored, fuel reduction)leading to the
long-term recovery of healthy, productive ecosystems.
Relevant Legislation and Government Actions
Colorado Governor Actions - In 2003 Governor Bill Owens issued Executive Order
D-oo2-03 directing state agencies to coordinate efforts for the eradication of tamarisk
on public lands (see Appendix A). As a result of the action,the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, completed the
10-Year Strategic Plan on the Comprehensive Removal of Tamarisk and the
Coordinated Restoration of Colorado's Native Riparian Ecosystems, January 2004
(see"State Plans" at www.tamariskcoalition.org).
Colorado Proposed Legislation — House Bill 1038 was introduced in the 2007
session of the Colorado Legislature by Representative Dan Gibbs (District 56, Summit
and Eagle counties) and Senator Josh Penry(District 7, Mesa and Garfield counties).
This legislation (see Appendix B) would have provided $1,000,000 per year for four
years to control noxious weeds with emphasis on riparian restoration efforts to control
tamarisk. These funds would be derived from the Severance Tax Trust Fund and
administered by the Department of Agriculture through the very successful Noxious
Weed Management Program. Although the bill passed both the House Agriculture and
Natural Resources Committee and the Finance Committee,budget constraints
prevented it from being enacted.
HB 1399
HB 1346,the 2008 Water Projects Bill asks to appropriate $60,600,000.00 from the
Severance Tax fund to go towards the Republican River Compact Compliance Pipeline.
There is a provision in this bill for $1 million each year for seven years to go to finance a
tamarisk/Russian olive control cost-sharing grant program.
Section 29 of House Bill H808-1346 directs the CWCB to allocate 1 million dollars to
implement a cost-sharing grant program for tamarisk and Russian olive control. This new
program will provide a funding source for removal, revegetation, and monitoring to ensure
restoration of riparian lands. Grants will be available to communities, conservation districts,
non-profits, and other eligible entities through a competitive process with input from the
Colorado Department of Agriculture. Grant recipients will be required to provide local
matching funds of at least half of the cost of restoration. Recipients will also be encouraged
to leverage the funds to take advantage of other grant programs (Federal and Private). A
portion of the appropriated fund, not to exceed 10 percent, will be used for grant program
administration, scientific research, and monitoring to better target projects and assess their
effectiveness.
Federal Legislation —After 4 years of diligent work by the House and Senate, the Salt
Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act was signed into law by the
President on October 11, 2006. It is referenced as HR272o or Public Law 109-320 (see
Appendix C). Colorado's congressional delegation was instrumental in its passage.
Senators Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar, Congressmen John Salazar and Mark Udall,
and former Congressman Scott McInnis were all involved as co-sponsors to make this
law a reality. The principal components of the Act include:
✓ Authorization to fund $8o million for large-scale demonstrations and associated
research over a five year period;
✓ Assessment of the tamarisk and Russian olive problem during the first year;
✓ Assessment of bio-mass reduction and utilization;
✓ Demonstration projects for control and revegetation that serve as research
platforms to assess restoration effectiveness, water savings,wildfire potential,
wildlife habitat,biomass removal, and economics of restoration;
✓ Project funding will be 75%federal and 25%local (cash and/or in-kind) with up
to $7,000,000 per project for the federal share. Demonstration projects on
federal lands and research will be funded at 100%;
✓ Development of long-term management and funding strategies; and
✓ Department of Interior will be the lead and will work with the USDA through a
Memorandum of Understanding to administer the Act.
The next step in providing funding at the local level is the inclusion of appropriations to
fully fund the Act in 2007. Several organizations and states are currently working with
Interior and Congress on this measure.
Environmental Setting
South Platte River: The project area for the South Platte River watershed extends
east and north from the headwater to Denver to the Colorado/Nebraska state line.
Terrain along this corridor progresses from the mountains areas to the braided channels
and broad floodplain of the Front Range onto the farm ground of the Eastern plains in
Colorado. Vegetation surrounding this stretch of the South Platte River ranges from
alpine evergreen communities to bunch grasses/sage/greasewood/rabbit brush
communities all adjacent to the riparian zone dominated by cottonwood and willow.
Tamarisk infestations occur primarily along the Front Range and east toward Nebraska.
The majority of tamarisk infestations can be found within the riparian corridor
stretching to the extent of the io0 year floodplain. Upland tamarisk infestations outside
of the floodplain also occur in fallow fields and around cattle tanks but are typically not
as common or dense.
Special Status Wildlife Habitat
Invasive woody species such as tamarisk and Russian olive are concentrated along rivers
and waterways which contain important wildlife species and habitats.
(We need info here!!!!)
Tamarisk and Russian Olive Species
The South Platte River and its riparian corridor are renowned for their ecological,
recreational, aesthetic, cultural, and vital economical value for water supply, livestock
production, and agriculture. Riparian lands are an integral and fragile aspect the
ecosystem due to their role in maintaining water quality and quantity, providing ground
water recharge, controlling erosion, and dissipating stream energy during flood events.
Unfortunately, many of these water systems and associated riparian lands have been
severely degraded over the past 150 years by anthropogenic activities (damming, road
building, irrigation, etc.) and invasive plant species, resulting in reduced water quality,
altered river regimes and reduced ecological systems and habitats.
Tamarisk(Tamarix spp.) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus Angustifolia) are invasive
species of particular interest due to their high profile status and negative environmental
impacts.
Tamarisk Ecology and Impacts —Tamarisk is a deciduous shrub or small tree that
was introduced to the western U.S. in the early nineteenth century for use as an
ornamental, in windbreaks, and for erosion control. Originating in central Asia and the
Mediterranean,tamarisk is a facultative phreatophyte with an extensive root system
well suited to the hot, arid climates and alkaline soils common in the western U.S.
These adaptations have allowed it to effectively exploit many of the degraded conditions
in southwestern river systems today(e.g., interrupted flow regimes, reduced flooding,
increased fire). By the mid-twentieth century,tamarisk stands dominated many low-
elevation (under 6,5oo feet) river, lake, and stream banks from Mexico to Canada and
into the plains states. Tamarisk cover estimates range from 1 to 1.5 million acres of land
in the western U.S. and may be as high as 2 million acres (Zimmerman 1997).
The exact date of introduction is unknown; however, it is generally understood that
tamarisk became a problem in western riparian zones in the mid 19oo's (Robinson 1965,
Howe and Knopf 1991). Genetic analysis suggests that tamarisk species invading the
U.S. include Tamarix chinensis, T. ramosissima, T.paruiflora, T. gallica, and T.
aphylla (Gaskin 2002, Gaskin and Schaal 2002). A hybrid of the first two species
appears to be the most successful intruder. There are several ornamental varieties of
tamarisk still marketed in the western United States. While these species are non-
invasive they do contribute genetic diversity to invasive populations.
Tamarisk reproduces primarily through wind and water-borne seeds,but a stand may
also spread through vegetative reproduction from broken or buried stems. Seeds are
viable for approximately six weeks (Carpenter 1998) and require a wet, open habitat to
germinate. In the presence of established native vegetation or sprouts,tamarisk
seedlings are not strongly competitive (Sher, Marshall and Gilbert, 2000; Sher,
Marshall and Taylor, 2002; Sher and Marshall, 2003). Therefore, if native plant
communities are intact or conditions favor native plant establishment or growth,
tamarisk invasion by seed is not likely to occur. However,the following several
conditions coinciding with the removal of the native canopy due to natural or
anthropogenic causes will allow new infestations to occur: 1) Late flooding-Tamarisk
seed production generally has a longer season than native vegetation, and therefore is
able to take advantage of overbank flooding at times of the year when native vegetation
is not dispersing seed. 2) Suppression of native vegetation - Herbivory (e.g., cows will
eat native saplings), drought, fire,lack of seed, or other disruptive processes can prevent
native plants from establishing, and thus allow tamarisk to invade. Once tamarisk
seedlings are established (as great as 1,000 indivduals/m2 initially), thick stands are
very competitive, excluding natives (Busch and Smith 1995,Taylor et al. 1999). Any
disruption of the riparian ecosystem appears to make invasion more likely, especially
alterations of hydrology(Lonsdale 1993, Decamps Planty-Tabacchi and Tabacchi 1995,
Busch&Smith 1995, Springuel et al. 1997, Shafroth et al. 1998). However,there are
also numerous documented cases of tamarisk stands where no known disruptions have
occurred.
Once a tamarisk stand is mature, it will remain the dominant feature of an ecosystem
unless removed by human means. Tamarisk has a higher tolerance of fire, drought, and
salinity than native species (Horton et al. 1960, Busch et al. 1992, Busch and Smith 1993
& 1995, Shafroth et al. 1995, Cleverly et al. 1997, Smith et al. 1998, Shafroth et al. 1998).
Tamarisk can increase fire frequency and intensity, drought(Graf 1978), and salinity
(Taylor et al. 1999) of a site. Hence, a strong initial infestation will promote a positive
feedback mechanism that will lead to more tamarisk invasion.
In addition to affecting abiotic processes,tamarisk dominance dramatically changes
vegetation structure (Busch &Smith 1995) and animal species diversity (Ellis 1995).
High invertebrate and bird diversity has been recorded in some tamarisk-dominated
areas and tamarisk is valued highly by the bee industry for its abundant flower
production. Although some forms of tamarisk(primarily younger, highly branching
stands) are favored by cup nesting bird species such as the endangered southwestern
willow flycatcher, many endemic species are completely excluded by it, including
raptors such as eagles (Ellis 1995). Because of its potential usefulness to some species,
stands of tamarisk mixed with native vegetation were found to have high ecological
value in Arizona study sites (Stromberg 1998). In contrast, mature monocultures of
tamarisk have a much lower ecosystem value.
In general, the following is an assessment of tamarisk and its impacts on riparian
systems throughout the West (Carpenter 1998, McDaniel et al. 2004).
➢ Tamarisk populations develop in dense thickets, with as many as 3,000 plants per
acre that can prevent the establishment of native vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods
(Populus spp), willows (Salix spp), sage, grasses, and forbs).
➢ As a phreatophyte, tamarisk invades riparian areas, potentially leading to extensive
degradation of habitat and loss of biodiversity in the stream corridor.
➢ Due to the depths of their extensive root systems tamarisk draw excess salts from the
groundwater. These are excreted through leaf glands and deposited on the ground
with the leaf litter. This increases surface soil salinity to levels that can prevent the
germination of many native plants.
➢ Tamarisk seeds and leaves lack nutrients and are of little value to most wildlife and
livestock.
> Leaf litter from tamarisk increases the frequency and intensity of wildfires which kill
native cottonwood and willows but stimulate tamarisk growth.
➢ Dense tamarisk stands on stream banks accumulate sediment in their thick root
systems gradually narrowing stream channels and increasing flooding. These
changes in stream morphology can impact critical habitat for endangered fish.
➢ Dense stands affect livestock by reducing forage and preventing access to surface
water.
> Aesthetic values of the stream corridor are degraded, and access to streams for
recreation (e.g., boating, fishing, hunting,bird watching) is lost.
➢ Tamarisk has a reputation for using significantly more water than the native
vegetation that it displaces. This non-beneficial user of the West's limited water
resources has been reported to dry up springs, wetlands, and riparian areas by
lowering water tables (Carpenter 1998, DeLoach 1997,Weeks et al. 1987).
What are the Local Impacts? — The most critical impacts for the PIE plan are
aesthetics, wildlife habitat loss, fire, and water usage. Wildlife habitat loss is important
from the ecological standpoint, while fire is a safety concern to communities. Water
loss, however is considered the most critical issue. The following section provides a
brief explanation of how this water loss occurs.
How much Water is Lost? — Limited evidence indicates that water usage per leaf
area of tamarisk and the native cottonwood/willow riparian communities is very similar.
However,because tamarisk grows in extremely dense thickets,the leaf area per acre
may actually be much greater than native stands; thus, water consumption could be
greater on a per acre basis (Kolb 2001). Another aspect of tamarisk water consumption
is its deep root system. Tamarisk roots can extend down to 10o feet, much farther than
healthy cottonwoods and willows stands which reach a depth of only a few meters
(Baum 1978, USDI-B0R 1995). This allows tamarisk to grow further back from the
river, occupy a larger area, and use more water across the floodplain than native
phreatophytes. This is significant because the upper floodplain terraces adjacent to the
riparian corridor typically occupy an area several times larger than the riparian zone
itself. In these areas, mesic and xeric plants (such as bunch grasses, sagebrush, rabbit
brush, four-wing salt bush, and skunk bush) can be replaced by tamarisk resulting in
overall water consumption several times the ecosystem's natural rate (DeLoach et al.
2002).
Water consumption estimates vary a great deal depending on location, maturity, density
of infestation,water quality, and groundwater depth. In 27 research plots, tamarisk had
an average annual water usage of 4.2 acre-feet/acre (95% confidence interval = 3.85 to
4.86) (NISC 2006). This agrees strongly with the most sophisticated evapotranspiration
studies using eddy-covalence measurements performed for the Bureau of Reclamation
(King and Bawazir 2000) of 4.35 feet per year. Water use by Russian olive was found to
be approximately the same. In many situations this water consumption is equivalent to
that of cottonwood/willow vegetation at a similar density. For dry-land vegetation such
as grasses/sage/rabbit brush communities, which are shallow-rooted and get their water
primarily from precipitation, the difference in water use is a function of the precipitation
received for the area. In the CHIP study area's riparian lands that tamarisk occupies
annual precipitation ranges from a low of 8 inches in Grand Junction to approximately
15 inches per year at the higher elevations where tamarisk exists (6,500 feet) (NOAA).
For areas that could support native phreatophytes, it is estimated that only
approximately 25%would actually be occupied by these species based on a number of
factors. Water loss calculations are based on these findings. Future water losses assume
complete infilling of tamarisk with no expansion of range.
Figure 2 represents the differences in vegetative cover with and without tamarisk and
illustrates tamarisk occupation of an area much greater than the riparian zone which
typically would support phreatophytes. Significant water losses may occur as tamarisk
occupy upland areas within the floodplain that would normally support only upland
mesic and xeric vegetation such as grasses, sage, rabbit brush, etc.
Figure 2: Tamarisk Induced Changes in Channel Structure and Associated Habitats
L ii isa:I50r' Virr;Nuw'narr Fom Slohlge.4 .
Floodplain
Upland Riparian Riparian Upland
Zone Zone
I
ilocdu 7 and Chenncl Modified by7;lmonsh il:N a Hoo,o go nexus, .Nm,ow. Deep Run Haba it
Tamarisk Thicket Tamarisk Thicket
o �
ErdmmlMK Bkwrtp '.. Applied Bank4
or—'-
14n paba,.Tan six so.Gag 000wo a.SU_SGS
ky 'LAeRMmt cstai Jana.Tap Dart Md CEng.la N0tSWInCS i4gt&sy ti$/.
1{*Tacaat Ca 1&ThdB**w 3,abpkY aaW.NWW MaWcriM It-A61 0.NIWI so aCMP/{Fp11NY.Qkrp]b1p IMNryYXY
Russian Olive Ecology&Impacts — Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)was
introduced to the United States in the late nineteenth century as an ornamental shrub or
small tree and has since spread from cultivation (Ebinger and Lehnen 1981, Sternberg
1996). Originating in southern Europe and central and eastern Asia (Hansen 1901,
Shishkin 1949, Little 1961), Russian olives are long-lived and resilient plants. They are
adapted to survive in a variety of soil types and moisture conditions, grow between sea
level and 8,000 feet, can grow up to 6 feet in one year (Tu 2003), are shade tolerant
(Shafroth et al. 1995), and can germinate over a longer time interval than native species
(Howe& Knopf 1991).
Until the 1990's several state and federal agencies promoted the distribution of Russian
olives for windbreaks and horticulture plantings in the western U.S. and in Canada
(Elemental Stewardship, Olson and Knopf 1986, Haber 1999). The seedlings were
touted for their use in controlling erosion (Katz and Shafroth 2003), providing wildlife
habitat(Borell 1962), and serving as a nectar source for bees (Hayes 1976). As a result,
Russian olives were distributed widely in the west and continue to spread through
natural sexual and vegetative reproduction (Tu 2003).
Russian olives are mature and begin producing seeds 3 to 5 years after establishment
(Tu 2003). Seeds are encased in a fleshy fruit providing an attractive food source for
wildlife, especially avian species. As the outer layer of the seed is impervious to
digestive fluids (Tesky 1992), seed predators are a significant factor in Russian olive
recruitment. Plant establishment has been documented following seed consumption by
birds (USDA 1974, Shafroth et al. 1995, Lesica and Miles 1999, Muzika and Swearingen
1998). Coyotes, deer, and raccoons have also been observed consuming and distributing
the seeds (USDA 2002). The seeds are dispersed in a dormant state during the cool
months in fall and winter. They prefer an after-ripening period of moist conditions
lasting roughly 90 days at 5 degrees Celsius to successfully germinate (Hogue and
LaCroix 1970, Belcher and Karrfalt 1979). In average conditions, seeds are viable for up
to 3 years (USDA 2002). This lengthy seed viability allows Russian olive more time to
utilize optimal germination conditions than most native plants giving Russian olive
another competitive edge (Howe and Knopf 1991, Shafroth et al 1995).
Russian olive seeds can germinate on undisturbed soils. Thus, they are not highly
dependent upon the flood disturbances that sustain native species (Shafroth et al. 1995,
Lesica and Miles 1999, Katz 2001) and are able to exploit the degraded conditions of
southwestern rivers today (e.g., interrupted flow regimes, reduced flooding, increased
fire, etc.).
Russian olives grow and compete with native plants well in dry, upland soils (Laursen
and Hunter 1986) and in wet-saline soils. However, non-saline, hydric soils and soils
with elevated sodium levels favor native species and the invasive plant tamarisk
recruitment (Tamarix spp.) over Russian olive respectively(Carman and Brotherson
1982).
Russian olives, once established, will remain a dominant feature of riparian systems.
The shade tolerate seedlings are able to germinate and thrive in the understory of native
trees. As the native trees die, Russian olive becomes the upper canopy of the system,
shading out native tree recruits (Shafroth et al.1995).
In general, the following is an assessment of Russian olives and their impacts on
riparian systems throughout the West (Tu 2003):
> Russian olives form dense, monotypic stands that affect vegetative structure,
nutrient cycling, and ecosystem hydrology.
> Presence of Russian olive can modify plant succession in a system.
➢ Russian olive results in lower native plant and animal diversity
> Wide spreading throughout woodlands connects riparian forests with upland
areas stabilizing floodbanks, increasing overbank deposition, and limiting
cottonwood regeneration sites.
➢ The evapotranspiration rates of Russian olives are higher than native species,
thus they consume more water resources (Carman and Brotherson 1982)
> The invasives can convert riparian areas to relative drylands with Russian olive as
the climax species (Olson and Knopf 1986).
➢ Dense stands of Russian olives increase fuel loads leading to more frequent and
intense wildfires that kill native plants (Caplan 2002).
➢ Russian olive trees provide inferior habitat to native vegetation and reduce
abundance and diversity of wildlife (Knopf and Olson 1984, Brown 1990)
The difficulty of controlling or removing mature stands of Russian olive makes it almost
impossible to eradicate from a watershed once it is established. Thus, it is important to
detect new infestations of Russian olive early on and to rapidly respond to remove them.
There are methods available to control Russian olives on a small scale, but the cost and
intense labor demands of the work can be expensive. Techniques used include mowing,
cutting, and girdling combined with herbicide application; basal bark herbicide
application; and burning, excavating, and bulldozing with no herbicide application (Tu
2003).
In general, Table 1 provides an overview of adverse characteristics and potential impacts
widely attributed to tamarisk(T) and Russian olive (RO). For more detailed
information the reader is referred to Carpenter 2002 and Tu 2003.
It should be noted that various other non-native invasives are intermixed with tamarisk
and Russian olive such as Russian knapweed, whitetop, Russian thistle, and purple
loosestrife and should be considered throughout the planning and implementation of
restoration actions.
Table t: Characteristics of Tamarisk(T) and Russian Olive (RO)
CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIPTION
Origin T Central Asia/Mediterranean
RO Europe/Western Asia
Estimated Cover T 1 to 1.5 million acres in the western United States
RO Unknown
Elevation T Sea Level to 6,500 feet
RO Sea Level to 8,000 feet
Habitat/Range T Western U.S. along riverways, springs, drainages
RO Throughout U.S. —most dense in western states
Tolerant T Floods,droughts,close shearing,and burning
RO Floods, droughts, close shearing,burning in dormancy,seedlings and
saplings are shade tolerant
Intolerant T Shade
RO Acidic conditions(pH<6.o)
Reproduction/ T Sexual and vegetative; seeds need moist soils/water and wind
Distribution
RO Sexual and vegetative; seeds can propagate in undisturbed soils/water
and wildlife
Growth patterns T Dense monotypic stands, clumps or stringers
RO Dense monotypic stands or scattered occurrences
CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIPTION
Soils T Seedling require moist soils; ranges widely as adult;
highly tolerant of and actually increases surface salinity
RO Can tolerate bare mineral or nitrogen poor soils, prefers sandy
floodplains and open, moist riparian habitats, tolerant of prolonged
inundation
Vegetation Impacts T Once established, grows densely and excludes natives
RO Shade tolerate allowing it to out compete natives through succession
and exclusion
Water Use T Equivalent evapotranspiration to riparian native phreatophytes such
as willows and cottonwoods,but deep root systems uses water even in
drought,high leaf area index and tendency to grow in dense thickets
can result in more water usage per acre than natives, and grows in
mesic and xeric areas due to deep root depths
RO High rates of evapotranspiration similar to other phreatophytes,but
uses more water than native upland mesic and xeric vegetation
Wildlife Impacts T Reduced insect prey and habitat structure negatively impacts most
bird species with some exception,and poor habitat for raptors such as
bald eagles; channelization of streams reduced native riparian
recruitment and reduces backwaters and spawning areas for
endangered fish
RO Provides inferior habitat in the long-term resulting in loss of species
richness
Wildfire T Increases frequency and intensity, extremely fire tolerant
RO Increases fuel load; fire tolerant
Management T Difficult and expensive for mature stands
RO Difficult and expensive for mature stands
Forage T Poor nutrition
RO Poor nutrition,birds and other wildlife can feed on fruit
Livestock T Reduces forage area,surface water, and impedes access to flowing
water
RO Reduces forage area, surface water, and impedes access to flowing
water
Stream/River T Dense stands stabilize river banks,change stream structure by
Morphology narrowing and deepening channels, and decreasing number and size
of backwaters needed to sustain a properly functioning ecosystem
with native riparian communities and wildlife habitats. Reduced
carrying capacity of river channels can increase flood damage
CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIPTION
RO Stabilizes river banks, increasing overbank deposition, and limit
native cottonwood regeneration
Recreation T Can be aesthetically pleasing though generally degrades aesthetic
value, obstructs access to streams/rivers, reduces native ecosystems
and diversity
RO Can be aromatically, aesthetically pleasing, obstructs river access,
reduces native ecosystems and diversity
Extent of the Problem
Inventory Background & Objectives—In 2006, the Tamarisk Coalition completed an
inventory of tamarisk infestations in the South Platte River watershed and its main tributaries for
the Colorado Water Conservation Board(CWCB). The purpose of this work was to establish
and implement an inventory protocol that would be economical to perform and would provide a
clear understanding of the extent of the tamarisk problem. These inventory/mapping protocols
proved to be successful. This discussion of the extent of the problem is focused on tamarisk
because it is the indicator species in the South Platte River watershed that best describes areas
that have serious riparian degradation.
Inventory Approach—Inventory and mapping were performed during the summer and fall of
2005 and 2006 and coordinated with the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) efforts to establish a
national on-line database which would conform to the weed mapping standards developed by the
North American Weed Management Association. The basic approach (see Appendix E for
mapping protocols)uses existing aerial photography, satellite imagery, and local knowledge
available from counties, river districts, soil and water conservation districts, state agencies, Army
Corps of Engineers, National Resources Conservation Service, USGS, Colorado State University
(CSU), and The Nature Conservancy. This information was then "ground-truthed"by a 2-man
team to confirm infestation density, maturity, accessibility, presence of native species, and
several other site characteristics. GPS data and digital photo records were taken and shape files
were developed utilizing GIS capabilities at Mesa State College. Nearly 470 miles on the
Colorado, Gunnison, Uncompahgre, and Dolores Rivers and their major tributaries from the
CO/UT state line were surveyed using this approach. This information, in the form of shapefiles
and characteristics data, has been transformed into a digital GIS database which is now available
on the USGS' National Institute of Invasive Species Science website, www.niiss.org
Findings—The inventories for the South Platte River and its major tributaries are presented in
Table 2 and represent a summary of the detailed information collected which is found on the
supplementary Data-DVD. Table 2 provides the most current assessment of acreage of tamarisk
and its impacts on water resources. The inventory process focused on an efficient economical
mapping/inventory protocols to identify 85 to 90 percent of tamarisk within this watershed. The
remaining percentage represents small pockets of infestations that are scattered throughout the
region and would be proportionately very expensive to map. Thus, the inventory and water loss
calculations are somewhat conservative.
e e e o
1.. O O O O L
4.O ""�y O O O O a
d .d o 4~9 69 N 0
C CO
E L i
a E 03 y a,
L m = m = da
y O y O >G U U dU U U a
t
d
..
W II II II II C
t J.
y j °0 es z 0 « pdp w j c
W 't w W W W C 'I s b
a 3 r. 3
OI-. 3 03 u 0. as u v>
W hi= .W.. a E 1.W. m = .0
Si al Fn L. 0 54 9
1 w o d Z u W 01
e
C a V 0 W a
CI) W ..
3 CO �' d t° d in h Iw
o f v o f bb
a d a
1..
l'.
v?: c��+ 3 o • a
FG W i an d c i 3
ca d v d a
W > "
04 0 9
W
47 y O t O
O tam O O M > O 0 M
a a CI) ea 7t al d °�'"' o0
i m W h W G a
y I ` 0. a
o •a+ d O 0 d d 60 Cig 0 0
N
�. o v 3 w y 7 3
h U Qom .=°. 40 C
d 7 e O e
Q o ' U o ' U
es
4.)
d+
•L. bi L
d d
W u > y II d L > '—
a, II
d
" Q�" A u O 4 0 i C
CO W a G CI C a
a0+
d U y U U i. a
7 W > b0 Cd0 W > .
d >
03 d
2
4.
Tel UI of a
m k d H u
0
a
I.
i e d eQ. d itd
7 G A
W.,
t
7
'a .a
iy
II II
W w N
N O = O
CD d g C
W W gli d '^d. 00
I. d O a 6 .� P.° d
y - . fit .0 00 40 > 3
� C Ca GO a. C7 ,C lay vnrn ai tiP C] C7 a. 0 w vi vn
4 O O O O
O 0 O O O
H lem
'y O O e 0 COQ 7
N y O -69 so 4S co
CO U co
O �i
U
lo
II II II II
C lo
OS
II
CO d tra o m
3I ay.
CO U 3 4. CO O.
is a ` .a a t
y
W y o m u
c y 4 to
CD
CO O OS
OS 4
_ co
O. y > 0 a t° C
0. r
in CPIu Va o m
Y 1.1 W d09 V 3
w i eo p
01 0 1.4
7
6. W 4
II II CI
I. CIO ISS
ego
44 4 x
as
4OR k a!0 C.
n � o.
u u 08 x y
a 0 3
CO o
4.
d a 0
O. ' U o
.2
w
4
CJ
R
oI 4
Cl.
G OS hV udF QO
d
COI d 1O
F
ie
a e
L y
7 0
Q
RI
II
I.
u
C
O
d y
CO
y h 1O in O .-+ eel 7 h 00 01
a .. 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 00
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o ...
0 3.F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The following summarizes the findings depicted in Table 2:
1. General Description of Main stem Tamarisk Infestations:
a. The South Platte River from the Denver to Brighton( miles)has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density. The Brighton to Platteville section(miles) has
approximately the total acres of infestation at average density at
approximately %. The Platteville to Greeley(miles)has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density. The Greeley to Masters (miles)has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density. The Masters area to Fort Morgan ( miles) has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density. Fort Morgan to Sterling (miles)has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density. Sterling to Nebraska state line( miles) has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density.
2. General Descriptions of Tributary Tamarisk Infestations:
a. The major tributaries for the South Platte River had an additional
acres of infestation with an average density of approximately %.
3. General Description of Main stem Russian Olive Infestations:
a. The South Platte River from the Denver to Brighton (miles)has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density. The Brighton to Platteville section (miles)has
approximately the total acres of infestation at average density at
approximately %. The Platteville to Greeley(miles)has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density. The Greeley to Masters ( miles) has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density. The Masters area to Fort Morgan ( miles) has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density. Fort Morgan to Sterling( miles)has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density. Sterling to Nebraska state line ( miles) has
approximately total acres of tamarisk infestation at approximately
average density.
4. General Descriptions of Tributary Russian Olive Infestations:
a. The major tributaries for the South Platte River had an additional
acres of infestation with an average density of approximately %.
5. Current water losses are based on the amount of water tamarisk is currently using
under observed densities minus the water that would be used by native plants.
Figure 2 illustrates the differences in vegetative cover with and without tamarisk
and shows that tamarisk is able to occupy a much greater area than the riparian
zone that supports cottonwoods and willows, also phreatophytes. The significant
water losses occur as tamarisk occupies terrace areas within the floodplain that
would normally have dryland xeric vegetation such as grasses, sage, rabbit brush,
etc. The overall South Platte River system and its tributaries generally have
terrace areas ranging between 35% and 60%. Based on these conditions, the
estimates of current water losses above and beyond what native vegetation would
use are approximately:
South Platte River
a. South Platte River from Denver to Nebraska state line= acre-feet a
year.
b. Tributaries = 900 acre-feet a year.
6. Future water losses assume an infilling of the existing infestation areas will likely
occur over the next several decades based on similar conditions observed in other
states (NM, UT, and NV). Future water losses from infilling only(with no
expansion from existing infested areas) are estimated to be approximately:
South Platte River
a. South Platte River from Denver to Nebraska state line= acre-feet
per year.
b. Tributaries = 2,700 acre-feet per year.
7. If tamarisk control and revegetation occurs on any this river or its tributary
sections, the water normally lost to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration
will be conserved and will remain within the groundwater and/or surface water
regimes.
8. Throughout this watershed it is common to have Russian olive coexist with
tamarisk especially in the urban corridor where Russian olive has escaped from
landscape plantings.
Expected Ecosystem Changes to Riparian Areas—Expected conditions following
tamarisk and Russian olive control projects in the South Platte watershed include
enhanced aquatic, riparian, and floodplain habitat. The quantity and quality of these
habitats would be improved, resulting in increased habitat for fish and wildlife including
endangered fish species. Opportunities for environmental education, improved
aesthetics, recreation, agricultural use, and improved management of flood flows would
exist in project areas. Significant conservation of water resource would also result from
tamarisk and Russian olive control in these watersheds. These expected changes will
occur only if all aspects of restoration are part of the solution; i.e., site specific planning
and design, control, revegetation,biomass reduction, monitoring, and long-term
maintenance.
Beneficial impacts of restoration also include increased resilience to future stresses such
as fire, drought, climate change, or other invasive plants; creating a more self-sustaining
ecosystem; providing the benefits of improved water resources; and reducing future
riparian management costs.
Control, Biomass Reduction, Revegetation,
Monitoring, and Long-term Maintenance
Management of non-native phreatophytes generally consists of five components
— planning with inventory/mapping, control and biomass reduction,
revegetation, monitoring, and maintenance. Without all five components it is
unlikely that tamarisk and Russian olive control projects will be successful over
time. Successful management also depends on flexible approaches open to
experiential learning and new technologies. This is referred to as "adaptive
management."
For the discussion on the control component of management, the focus is on
Russian olive because it is the principal non-native phreatophyte in the South
Platte watershed. In general, the following discussion also applies to tamarisk
but may be slightly different for each (e.g.,type of herbicide used). A detailed
comparison of major control technologies implemented throughout the West can
be found in Appendix G which describes in more detail effectiveness, impacts,
applicability, cost algorithms, and time distribution of costs.
Appendix H, Templates and Protocols, provides a suggested approach to select
appropriate techniques for control and biomass reduction, revegetation,
monitoring, and long-term maintenance. Biomass reduction and revegetation
approaches are not always needed because in many situations natural
revegetation can occur and biomass reduction may not be needed. For the
purposes of this Plan the term template defines what actions should be taken,
and the term protocol defines how the actions could be performed. These
templates and protocols are intended as suggested guidance and criteria for
decision making while carrying out the activities associated with various aspects
of tamarisk and Russian olive control and biomass reduction, revegetation,
monitoring, and long-term management. Thus, the intent is to ensure that
selected approaches are effective and efficient, and decisions are well
documented.
Control
Russian olive can be controlled using a variety of weed management techniques,
including chemical, mechanical, and biological techniques. All of the following
Russian olive control techniques are appropriate, but each must be selected based
on local conditions; i.e., "Integrated Pest Management." Integrated Pest
Management or IPM is the "toolbox"from which land managers select techniques
for a project in a specific setting.
The IPM toolbox includes prevention, cultural management(land stewardship),
mechanical or physical removal,biological control, herbicide treatments, and
revegetation techniques. Appendix G provides photos and detailed comparison
of each of these major control technologies. It should be noted that there are
many hybrids of these technologies that fall within the general understanding of
tamarisk control. Actual costs and applicability may vary for each site. The basic
approaches include:
> Hand cutting with herbicide application —This method is referred to as
the "cut stump" approach in which the tree is cut or scored with chainsaws,
handsaws, or axes, and the stump is treated with an herbicide within a few
minutes of cutting. This approach is considered to be very appropriate in the
PIE plan area for difficult to access areas; areas of special concern; areas in
close proximity to valuable native vegetation, historic and archeological sites;
campgrounds; and efforts involving volunteer support.
> Hand removal by extraction —This method uses simple hand tools such
as the Weed Wrench,tripod/hand winch, and shovels and saws to dig out the
root system and cut below the root crown. These techniques have been
perfected at the Dinosaur National Monument and utilize volunteer groups
because of their high labor requirements. No herbicides are used with these
approaches. These approaches are least appropriate for the PIE plan area due
to the size of most of the Russian olives.
> Mechanical removal -This approach uses heavy equipment to physically
remove Russian olive. This is accomplished in one of two ways - root crown
removal or mulching.
o Root crown removal is the extraction of the root crown by either
root plowing accompanied by root raking to remove the root crown
from the soil or by extraction of the entire plant. These approaches do
not use herbicide.
• Root plowing and raking is extremely disruptive to the soil,
native plants are destroyed, and the intense soil disturbance
would support weed viability. It essentially removes all
vegetation in a manner that would be similar to preparing land
for intense agricultural production. For this reason and because
much of the area is not accessible for large equipment (Cat D-7
or larger), it is unlikely that root plowing and raking would be
used extensively in the PIE plan area.
• Extraction approaches uses a large tracked excavator (Cat 325
or larger). This is appropriate for some areas, especially those
areas that have steep banks such as ditches and river banks and
along roadway embankments. This approach results in high
levels of soil disturbance and thus may require significant
revegetation efforts. The removed biomass may also require
disposal or additional treatment such as mulching.
o Mulching uses newly developed, specialized equipment followed by
herbicide application to the cut stumps. The most commonly used
pieces of equipment are the Timber Ax,the Hydro Ax, and the Bull
Hog. The resulting mulched materials can reduce soil disturbance, and
provide a good seed bed for native plant recruitment if the mulched
materials are not too thick while discouraging establishment of noxious
weeds. Tracked mulching equipment provides a lighter footprint
pressure than those with wheels and thus causes less soil disturbance.
PIE areas suitable for this approach are limited to wide or somewhat
level floodplains or old existing shelterbelts.A few larger tributaries
could also be treated by mulching.
> Aerial herbicide application — In larger infestation areas such as in Texas
and New Mexico, helicopter and fixed wing aircraft are being used to apply
foliar herbicide where monotypic stands of tamarisk exist. This approach will
likely not be implemented in the PIE area because: i) monotypic infestations
in this region are typically not broad enough to make this approach
economically feasible, and 2) significant native vegetation is present within
the Russian olive infestations and aerial spraying would cause mortality
among these species.
> Ground application of foliar and basal bark herbicides — Herbicides
can be effectively applied by hand, from horseback, or by motorized
equipment in some cases where other methods are impractical or expensive.
It is recommended that this approach be used in isolated areas where other
methods would unlikely be used such as scattered infestations in sparse or
remote locations, upland areas, isolated stock tanks, etc.
> Biological control —This method for invasive plant control uses specific
organisms to control an undesirable organism. For Russian olive control goat
grazing has been used effectively. For tamarisk, two biological control agents
have been identified — goats and a tamarisk leaf-eating beetle. Both
organisms work to control the tree species by repeated defoliation of the plant
over several years.
o Goats will feed on Russian olive and tamarisk shrubs if fencing is
provided to limit other food sources. Typically, a guard dog, herding
dog, and goat herder or electric fencing pens are required. Several
private goat herds are available throughout the region. For some areas
this approach may be favored, especially if other noxious weeds such as
thistle or knapweeds are in abundance and herbicide use is restricted,
costly, or too much land to cover.
o Diorhabda elongata, tamarisk leaf-eating beetle, has been
tested extensively in quarantine and field releases to ensure safety with
respect to non-target impacts. These insects (see Figure 3) are native
to Asia and are currently approved for open release in Colorado. These
releases are being closely monitored by the Colorado Department of
Agriculture's Palisade Insectory and entomologists from CSU. Russian
olive will not be controlled through this biological control agent. The
use of these insects is seen as an important issue and a promising
approach for tamarisk control in areas with large infestations.
However, this approach will be in limited use along the South Platte
River, due to our small infestations.
Biomass Reduction
Removal of dead Russian olive tree skeletons may be important after mechanical
root crown removal,biological control, or foliar herbicide control if densities are
moderate to heavy. Biomass reduction under these conditions assists planned
revegetation efforts, restores aesthetic values, and reduces the wildfire potential
of decomposing litter in moderately to highly infested areas. The removal of dead
trees can be accomplished using mechanical mulching equipment or fire.
Mechanical mulching, by its nature manages the dead material by transforming it
into mulch. However, if a large amount of biomass is mechanically mulched and
piled the thickness of the layer produced may actually impede or prevent
revegetation. Reducing biomass with fire may require the construction of
adequate fire breaks in sensitive areas to safely burn the invasive plants. In
addition, air quality may be a concern for large-scale burns as carbon sequestered
in the tamarisk will be released instantly. Fire is an option that must be
carefully coordinated with land managers and county air quality
personnel. It should only be used for biomass reduction on dead
plants, because live Russian olive will flourish after fire. As shown in
Figure 7, fire breaks and professional fire fighting staff are critical because of the
intensity that tamarisk and Russian olive fires exhibit.
For many areas with light to moderate infestations, the dead biomass can be left
standing without any actual physical biomass reduction actions. Standing dead
biomass in these situations probably does not significantly impede natural or
planned revegetation, affect aesthetics, or support high wildfire potential. After
plant mortality, it will take an additional two to four years for root decay to occur
before the dead skeletons will naturally fall over. Over the next few years the
remaining biomass will decompose to a level that may not present any significant
problems. These time estimates are based on site observations of tamarisk killed
by herbicide in the area.
Figure 1: Removal of dead tamarisk using controlled fire at the Bosque del
A'ache NWR, NM 2004
4
+
'� ' .`agrv�`-�t,Y„ l"Y ,.ayw.�+'{``t_;.4 .✓ Y` .:. — �;* t' f h,, >fi.'* '.ti
Revegetation
Successful revegetation is an enormously complex undertaking with few
straightforward guidelines and no universal solutions. As a result, implementing
revegetation projects following the removal of invasive species is an inherently
site-specific task that does not easily translate into a large scale plan. For the PIE
planning area it is recommended that local revegetation specialists, CSU
Cooperative Extension, NRCS, and comprehensive revegetation and restoration
texts be used to develop a course of action for individual projects. The University
of Denver has a"Best Management Practices"handbook for revegetation that has
been available since 2007. There are many excellent sources presently available
to inform revegetation actions with some of them reviewed below:
➢ Society for Ecological Restoration
Summary: This site provides a reading list for ecological restoration
practices,links for many example projects and other resources and support.
http://www.ser.org/reading resources.asp
➢ Riparian Restoration in the Southwest- Species Selection,
Propagation, Planting Methods, and Case Studies
Summary: This document identifies the natural processes and managed
activities that cause the degradation of riparian lands and provides general
guidelines to restore the natural system. It details methods of selecting
appropriate species for revegetation, producing riparian plants, planting
techniques, and provides case studies of past projects.
http://www.nm.nres.usda.gov/programs/pmc/svmposium/nmpmcsvo38s2.p
df
➢ Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices
Summary: This large and detailed document has a three-tiered design. The
first section provides background information describing the basics of stream
corridor systems. The second section describes the steps to produce an
effective restoration plan. The final section provides guidelines to implement
restoration projects.
http://www.nres.usda.gov/technical/stream restoration/
➢ The Pole Cutting Solution
Summary: Guidelines for planting dormant pole cuttings in riparian areas of
the Southwest. Planting dormant pole cuttings has proven to be a successful
technique for establishing many riparian tree and shrub species.
http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.govinews/publications/polecutting.pdf
➢ Plant Technology Fact Sheet: Tall-Pots
Summary: This fact sheet describes the use of tall-pots to establish plants in
areas lacking sufficient soil moisture or irrigation availability to revegetate
using more traditional means.A discussion of the structure, usefulness,
benefits, and limitations of the tall-pot revegetation method is included.
http://www.nm.nres.usda.gov/programs/pmc/factsheets/tall-pot.pdf
While the specifics of revegetation are difficult to comprehensively determine,
some general information corresponding to the PIE planning area is provided.
One of the most interesting aspects of local experience with Russian olive control
is the abundance of native plants present in the Russian olive understory. Non-
native weeds such as Russian and diffuse knapweed, Canada thistle and whitetop
were also found and could become a problem if left unattended. Annual weeds,
while a short term concern, generally find a balance that does not preclude native
plant establishment (with some exceptions). A plant list is included in Appendix
I as a starting point for revegetation planning, keeping in mind the importance of
knowing specific site characteristics before choosing plants for revegetation
purposes.
Revegetation is critical to successful long-term tamarisk and Russian
olive control. Revegetation efforts may require labor, seed, plant materials,
fertilizer, equipment rental,weed control, and water. Requirements for
revegetation have a direct relationship to density of infestation and width of
infestation. For narrow widths (less than 5o feet) natural revegetation may occur
more easily because of close proximity to native plant/seed sources. However,
these areas may still incur minor to moderate costs because of soil disturbance
and the need for weed control. For broader widths (greater than 5o feet) costs
will shift to the higher side because less native plant/seed will be available for
reintroduction to the interior areas of the infestation. Other site conditions also
influence revegetation such as surface and ground water dynamics, soil chemistry
and texture, density of propagules of desired revegetation species, etc.
When there are many natives interspersed within the tamarisk stand(which is
often difficult to determine until removal begins) removal of invasives must be
executed in a manner that protects native seed sources for natural revegetation
on-site and within the basin. Manual control, root extraction and Timber Ax
mowing/mulching are methods capable of sparing interspersed natives, even 1-
inch caliper saplings.
In broader areas of infestation, it may be important to plan a biomass removal
pace that allows and encourages natural native plant regeneration rather than
seeding and planting. However, in such large dense stands of tamarisk it may be
advisable to create vegetative islands and paths within the tamarisk to help speed
the native regeneration process, and provide fire breaks.
In some higher value areas such as wildlife habitats or high profile/high human
use areas pole plantings, shrub and tubing plantings, and seeding may be
desirable to aid in the regeneration process. However,these kinds of
revegetation projects are extremely expensive and require long-term
maintenance commitments.
Monitoring
For riparian restoration activities, "monitoring" is the act of observing changes
that are occurring or expected to occur with, or without, remediation actions.
The purpose of monitoring is to provide information in response to objectives,to
make informed decisions to initiate, continue, modify, or terminate specific
actions, remediation activities or programs —better known as"adaptive
management."
Two considerations important to the PIE monitoring efforts to gauge ecological
changes are scale and ownership. In general there are two divisions in each of
these elements: large-scale verses small-scale projects; and public ownership
verses private ownership. For the purposes of this discussion it will be assumed
that parcel sizes large enough to support large-scale projects are usually located
on public lands and that small scale projects will be located primarily on private
lands. Coordination between private land owners and public land managers is
essential to gain access to private lands, create a standard monitoring protocol,
and to develop and execute training in monitoring methods. Depending on the
objectives of each restoration site, varying combinations of monitoring
approaches may be designed based on intensity of restoration, site specifics, or
capability of collaborators.
Large-scale monitoring on public lands allows policy makers, land managers, and
the public to evaluate the potential impacts of remediation on water resources,
vegetation, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, economic health, society, and culture.
These are essential considerations for determining what level of funding should
be committed to the control efforts by the local, state, and/or federal agencies.
Pre-restoration monitoring is important to establish baseline data to determine if
goals and objectives are being achieved on the landscape scale.
Small-scale monitoring on private lands provides useful information on the
effectiveness of control and remediation activities. This information allows for
modifications, if necessary, to achieve the remediation goals. In general, small-
scale monitoring criteria should consist of simple and inexpensive monitoring
techniques based on the needs of the management objectives.
Long-term Maintenance
Long-term maintenance is a dynamic management process, carried out over
years to decades to achieve social, economic, and ecological goals associated with
a watershed. The process of management encompasses the strategic
implementation of actions to identify, maintain, remediate, improve, and
monitor the ecological processes of the watershed. Actions, and the tools
required to accomplish them, are chosen because they are consistent with and
likely to achieve the watershed goals, and because they address the results of
monitoring.
Monitoring is related to maintenance in that it is the act of observing changes
that are occurring with, or without, remediation actions. Monitoring provides
information for making informed decisions to ensure "maintenance"will
continue to remediate or improve the ecological processes of the watershed. For
tamarisk and Russian olive restoration these measures are important for effective
control on a long-term basis and that the desired outcomes of revegetation and
prevention of other noxious weed infestations are successful.
Research shows that if resources are spent only on control with no
cohesive approach to long-term revegetation, monitoring, and
maintenance, the potential for successful riparian restoration is
limited.
Proposed Strategies for Control, Biomass Reduction,
Revegetation, Monitoring, and Long-term
Maintenance of Watershed Sections
The mapping and inventory work completed for the Colorado Water
Conservation Board (Appendices F and G), coordination with county weed
managers, and the economic algorithms developed by the Tamarisk Coalition
(Appendix G) identify a range of costs for tamarisk and Russian olive control and
restoration. Combining the attribute information gathered for each area of
infestation (acres, percent cover, accessibility, and width)with the economic
algorithms found on the supplementary Data-DVD provides a "planning-level"
range of costs based on an Integrated Pest Management approach for each
individual area. This detailed information is presented in the supplementary
Data-DVD. A summary of this cost information is provided in Table 2.
The cost information is considered to be appropriate for planning purposes to
understand the basic range of costs one could expect. Based on the estimates
developed, the overall costs are:
South Platte River:
• XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
•
Proposed Watershed Strategies
The following discussions are the proposed strategies for tamarisk and Russian
olive control,biomass reduction, and revegetation for specific geographic settings
for the South Platte watershed. These strategies were developed in coordination
with county weed managers and land managers throughout the region.
As a component of these strategies, revegetation will likely occur naturally for
lightly infested sites with some minor weed control. For moderate infestations,
some reseeding will be necessary while heavy infestations will require substantial
revegetation efforts. Weed control will increase proportionately with the degree
of infestation. In general, revegetation efforts for all areas, when required, may
consist of:
1. Pole cuttings for cottonwoods and willows in areas with shallow
groundwater(less than to feet).
2. Longstem planting using tall pot techniques to revegetate upper terrace
sites that have deeper groundwater and lack overbank flooding. This
approach is very useful for some trees and shrubs such as snowberry,
rabbit brush and four-wing saltbush. For more information see the
revegetation section contained earlier in the plan.
3. Broadcast or seed drilling for grasses and forbs such as salt grass, alkali
sacaton, sand dropseed,western wheatgrass,blue grama, sideoats grama,
streambank wheatgrass, switchgrass, slender wheatgrass,green needlegrass,
and indian ricegrass.
Weed control following tamarisk and Russian olive control and during
revegetation efforts is necessary to prevent the establishment of noxious weeds
such as, perennial pepperweed, cheatgrass, hoary cress (whitetop), Canada
thistle, Russian and diffuse knapweed, purple loosestrife,etc. In general, weed
control for all areas, when required, may utilize herbicide, mechanical,biological,
and through preventive measures associated with successful revegetation
approaches.
South Platte River Watershed Strategies
10190003, 10190012 and 10190001 -South Platte River, Denver to
CO/NEB state line — This area, represented by aerial photos in
Appendix F, is the main South Platte River. This piece of the watershed will have
the highest priority for addressing the tamarisk and Russian olive trees. Access
to the main stem of the South Platte River is not an issue in 95% of the river
corridor.Tamarisk infestations are light to medium and are concentrated in the
floodplain. Most of the river bank and many of the islands have healthy willow
and cottonwood plant communities.
Tamarisk infestations are light and well spaced out, it is recommended that either
hand or mechanical cut stump approaches with herbicide application will be the
primary approach in all areas of the main stem of the South Platte River. Russian
olives have a significant presence throughout much of the South Platte River.
Control will first be implemented on the main river flood plain and then move
away from the flood plain. Control will require either hand or mechanical cut
stump approaches with herbicide application as the primary approach in all
areas, until a biological approach is approved for Russian olive trees.
Revegetation will mostly be focused on areas of heavy Russian olive infestations.
10190007: Cache La Poudre —
10190006: Big Thompson —
10190005: St. Vrain —
10190010: Kiowa —
10190011: Bijou —
10190013: Beaver —
10190014: Pawnee —This drainage is shared with Logan County. Joint
projects will be generated to address the infestations. This drainage has limited
contact with the South Platte River and will have a lower priority for addressing
the Russian olive infestations.At this time no or very light tamarisk infestations
exist in this drainage area. Close monitoring will be conducted. The Russian olive
trees will be removed with either hand cutting or mechanical options and
followed by an herbicide application to prevent root sprouting. Revegetation will
be conducted to replace any wind breaks that are removed in this process.
10190017: Sidney Draw— This drainage is shared with Wyoming and
Nebraska. Joint projects will be generated to address the infestations. This
drainage is also a good distance from the South Platte River and will have a lower
priority for addressing the Russian olive infestations. At this time no or very light
tamarisk infestations exist in this drainage area. Close monitoring will be
conducted. The Russian olive trees will be removed with either hand cutting or
mechanical options and followed by an herbicide application to prevent root
sprouting. Revegetation will be conducted to replace any wind breaks that are
removed in this process.
10190008: Lone Tree/Owl -This drainage is shared with Wyoming. Joint
projects will be generated to address the infestations. This drainage has limited
contact with the South Platte River and will have a lower priority for addressing
the Russian olive infestations.At this time no or very light tamarisk infestations
exist in this drainage area. Close monitoring will be conducted. The Russian olive
trees will be removed with either hand cutting or mechanical options and
followed by an herbicide application to prevent root sprouting. Revegetation will
be conducted to replace any wind breaks that are removed in this process.
10190009: Crow-This drainage is shared with Wyoming. Joint projects will be
generated to address the infestations. This drainage has limited contact with the
South Platte River and will have a lower priority for addressing the Russian olive
infestations.At this time no or very light tamarisk infestations exist in this
drainage area. Close monitoring will be conducted. The Russian olive trees will be
removed with either hand cutting or mechanical options and followed by an
herbicide application to prevent root sprouting. Revegetation will be conducted
to replace any wind breaks that are removed in this process.
Section 2 - Implementation
The PIE plan up to this point (Section 1 - Background) has outlined the
background of the PIE planning process, the general nature of the problem,
important governmental actions, the site-specific problem in the study area,the
natural resource impacts to water and wildlife habitat, recommended restoration
approaches, and costs associated with those control and revegetation actions.
Section 2 - Implementation now lays out a specific"path forward"for
implementing the plan including a specific set of"actions"to facilitate success.
These discussions include:
1. Working with landowner
2. Education, outreach, and volunteerism
3. Research needs
4. Active restoration initiatives
5. Long-term sustainability
Working with Landowners
PIE's main objective is to restore riparian lands within the South Platte River's
watershed that have been degraded by woody invasive plants, principally
tamarisk and Russian olive. To successfully implement these restoration actions,
each landowner's property rights must be respected to ensure that i) the
landowner is included in restoration decision-making and that 2) efforts
coordinate with the landowner's specific objectives for the land. Landownership
includes public (federal, state, county, and local communities), legal subdivisions
of the state (e.g., sanitation districts, drainage districts), private landowners,
commercial (e.g., Excel Energy) and industry (e.g., Union Pacific and Burlington
Northern Railroads).
Because noxious weed control and riparian restoration are not normal
components of most of these landowner activities, assistance is often needed to
identify funding opportunities, apply for grants, and to administer grants. There
is no precedence for who should be the lead for each situation; however, the
following provides some general guidance for the partners in PIE.
✓ For private agricultural producers,the soil and water conservation
districts are the most appropriate organization to manage many of these
grants, especially those grants from the USDA. The Colorado Association
of Conservation Districts, located in Denver, is a good resource to assist
these districts in becoming significant partners with landowners and
restoration activities.
I Counties and non-profits (e.g., The Nature Conservancy) can assist in
acquiring grants for all entities, even for work on federal lands through
some grant programs (e.g., National Fish and Wildlife Foundation).
✓ Each entity can pursue its own grant opportunities for the land that it
manages.
A concern of the partners in PIE is that without coordination between all these
entities, there will be undue competition for the same funds; entities will not be
aware of all of the funding resources available; and/or there will be inefficiency in
using funds that are acquired. To resolve this concern, the following action is
recommended.
Action #1:
County weed mangers along with the Colorado Association of Conservation
Districts, should develop the following:
a) Develop a GIS dataset of land ownership for the riparian corridor
impacted by the target invasive species.
b) Establish a simple clearinghouse system to inform all parties of grant
opportunities.
c) Create a prioritization system that could be used to screen grants and
appropriate locations for restoration work. An example is provided in
Appendix J.
d) Develop a communication system that informs county weed managers of
all projects being conducted.
Education, Outreach, and Volunteerism
Gaining public support requires providing factual information that describes the
problem and the solutions being initiated. Important information for the public
understanding includes all aspects of the tamarisk and Russian olive problem;
control approaches that will be used with significant emphasis on the biological
control component where appropriate; how things will look differently over the
next 10 years; revegetation,biomass removal, monitoring, and long-term
maintenance. The overarching theme is RESTORATION not just
tamarisk or Russian olive control.
Action #2
Outreach expertise from counties, National Park Service,The Nature
Conservancy and the Conservation Districts could be used to develop materials
appropriate for the community and visitors to the area. Some of the key elements
of the program may include:
✓ A"frequently asked questions"brochure that will help locals and visitors
understand the following: i) What tamarisk is,where it came from, why it
is a problem, and tamarisk control methods; 2) How biological control
works, what to expect, monitoring of changes, etc.; 3)What will replace
the tamarisk, how the process will affect wildlife; 4) Who will implement
these projects and how will they be funded?
✓ Brochures for distribution through the Forest Service visitor centers,
Colorado state parks, DOW wildlife refuges, etc.
✓ Separate fact sheets on tamarisk and Russian olive ecology, biological,
control, herbicide usage and safety, etc.
✓ Display boards with historical photos can be utilized to compare present
day conditions to the past to give a perspective on the problem.
✓ River guide training on the issue and provision of education cards similar
to"Leave no trace"laminated waterproof cards.
✓ Information booths at local events, festivals, etc.
✓ Presentations to service groups such as Lions, Rotary, Chamber of
Commerce, 4-H youth groups, Boy Scouts Girl Scouts and other youth
organizations.
✓ Demonstration sites that can be used for tours.
Volunteer Program —An important aspect of education is gaining public
support for tamarisk and Russian olive control and revegetation to improve the
ecosystem of the PIE study area. One way of achieving this is through volunteer
programs. A number of groups within the area have done some excellent work
using volunteers for riparian restoration. These include: Poudre River Trail
Corridor, and St. Vrain State Parks. By participating in these programs, people
gain first-hand experience and an appreciation of ecosystem restoration. The
volunteer education effort would include information concerning how and where
to get involved as an individual or as an organization.
Action #3
The groups identified above should work together to i) develop a volunteer
"lessons learned" pamphlet that can be used by others to develop their own
volunteer program (a starter"cookbook"), 2) identify good volunteer projects,
and 3) pool resources for volunteer projects.
Figure 2: Volunteer tamarisk control project (and happy resident) in Flume
Canyon, McInnis Can ons National Conservation Area, May 2007.
l 'ti'I wJ'
}V�1(•''
��,.a{p FS
r
1
i 1- Aft..
t • ••it"
y ! �
yid t. lR •1- . Y 3
0
h
+' • 'Ica '4. . ""ft
w ,p2 1 `9 k
..r 4 it If
Photos courtesy of Ed Kosmicki
Long-term Sustainability
Long-term sustainability of the restored riparian lands is a function of a good
monitoring and maintenance program. To reiterate from previous discussions,
"monitoring" is the act of observing changes that are occurring with, or without,
remediation actions. The purpose of monitoring is to provide information for
making informed decisions to ensure"maintenance"will maintain, remediate,
and improve the ecological processes of the watershed. For tamarisk and
Russian olive restoration these measures are important for effective control on a
long-term basis and to ensure that the desired outcomes of revegetation and
prevention of other noxious weed infestations are successful.
The questions that must be addressed for the entire South Platte River watershed
is — Who should perform monitoring and maintenance? Do they
have the legal responsibility for these actions? Do they have the
necessary funding to carry out these responsibilities? These are
complicated questions because there are multiple jurisdictions (i.e.,federal, state,
county, and local) and there are multiple land ownerships (i.e., private, industry,
non-profit organizations, community, county, state, and federal). To be
successful, an organized, collaborative approach must be found.
Action Item #4:
It is clear that if resources are spent only on control and revegetation with no
cohesive approach to long-term monitoring and maintenance, the potential for
successful riparian restoration is limited. Therefore, the following
recommendation is made to establish a workable long-term monitoring and
maintenance program:
1. The South Platte River Water watershed Weed Management Area
members have agreed to initiate the facilitation of a working group to
formulate a set of solutions and policies for long-term monitoring and
maintenance for the entire South Platte River system. It is
recommended that the working group be co-chaired by the Colorado
Department of Agriculture and the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources. These two agencies are appropriate to lead this effort because
their main responsibilities are to protect our natural resources and they
work closely with the agricultural community.
2. The working group includes,but not be limited to, representatives from:
✓ County weed management departments (the areas within the
watershed with most of the infestations)
✓ State representatives to the House and Senate
✓ Local Conservation Districts
✓ CSU Cooperative Extension
✓ State Park Service
✓ US Forest Service
✓ Oil and Gas Industry
✓ USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
✓ Colorado Department of Local Affairs
✓ Colorado State University
✓ Colorado Division of Wildlife
✓ The Nature Conservancy
✓ Colorado Association of Conservation Districts
3. Within 12 months a consensus plan should be produced to implement a
long-term monitoring and maintenance program describing the
technical, political, and financial steps for tamarisk and Russian olive
control implementation and responsible entities.
This will be no easy task,but it is the critical element for successful riparian
restoration and should be dealt with seriously. If a workable long-term
monitoring and maintenance program for the South Platte River is successfully
formulated, this would be truly landmark work. It would lay the groundwork for
tackling this prickly issue and would be an excellent example for other
watersheds to use.
Research Needs
There are a number of research activities that can improve the success,
effectiveness, and efficiency of restoration for the PIE study area comprising the
South Platte River. The unique nature of the South Platte River watershed also
offers special opportunities to better understand tamarisk and Russian olive
impacts to water resources and wildlife habitat as well as restoration responses.
By intertwining restoration with research there is greater appeal to some funding
sources to provide grants (e.g., new federal legislation under P.L. 109-320 in
Appendix C). The following are current research interests at the university and
federal research levels:
✓ CSU, Palisade Insectary, and Tamarisk Coalition are actively working
together to monitor biological control on western slope releases. Four
additional release sites will be established in 2007. Monitoring of the
Utah beetle releases that will be moving into Colorado will also occur.
✓ Utah State University and University of Utah in cooperation with San Juan
and Grand Counties in Utah are performing research and monitoring of
the tamarisk problem and biological control efforts at a number of sites in
southeastern Utah including the Entrada Ranch on the Dolores River.
✓ The University of Denver (DU) has developed a "Best Management
Practices" handbook for tamarisk control and has completed a similar
handbook for revegetation.
✓ Mesa State College has an active riparian restoration program that
includes field work to develop practical solutions. DU has a similar
program underway for undergraduate and graduate students.
✓ CSU is devoting approximately $i,000,000 over the next five years for
tamarisk research efforts.
✓ Bureau of Reclamation scientists in Denver are developing more effective
measures to improve revegetation success.
Action #5
A working group should be established to collaborate with these six institutes and
others as identified to identify specific research needs for the area,to utilize their
research skills, and to ensure information sharing in the four watersheds.
Active Restoration Activities
Action #6
The partners in PIE should work together to continue to support and leverage
existing projects to gain additional funding resources. The recommended action
is to establish an active Grants Committee in the Lower and Upper South Platte
watersheds to focus on grant opportunities and to communicate progress for
active projects. The key to successful implementation on any of the proposed
restoration strategies, education, research, outreach, etc. is funding to sustain the
activity.
Definitions
Adaptive management is a natural resources management process under
which planning, implementation, monitoring, research, evaluation, and
incorporation of new knowledge are combined into a management approach that
i) is based on scientific findings and the needs of society, 2) treats management
actions as experiments, 3) acknowledges the complexity of these systems and
scientific uncertainty, and 4) uses the resulting new knowledge to modify future
management methods and policy.
Basal bark herbicide application refers to the application of herbicide to the
smooth bark at the base of non-native phreatophytes usually through a spray.
Biodiversity refers to biological diversity in an environment as indicated by
numbers of different species of plants and animals.
Biological control is the use of specific organisms to control an undesirable
organism.
Collaboration means involving all affected stakeholders in a set of decisions
that guide how ecological rehabilitation and maintenance is undertaken,
supported, and evaluated.
Coordination means making sure that those involved are aware of what other
related activity is taking place. Coordination helps to maximize the efficient use
of resources, promote consistency in process and standards where appropriate,
and sequence efforts to achieve the greatest impact.
Disturbance regimes are the range of events, natural to an ecosystem, that
temporarily change the structure and function of the systems, such as wildfire,
drought, floods and insect or disease outbreak,to which the system is adapted.
Ecological processes refer to the natural cycles, disturbances and interactions
of all parts of an ecosystem, such as nutrient and mineral cycles, fire or flood
incidence, and species interactions.
Ecological restoration refers to a broad framework of activities for returning
ecosystems to healthy functioning conditions. Ecological restoration activities
are based on specific landscapes and objectives, and should incorporate past
experience as a guide to sustainable futures. These activities include, but are not
limited to: reducing overly-dense woody vegetation, re-establishing native
vegetation, repairing erosion and soil condition, restoring hydrological function,
and monitoring all these activities for effective long-term maintenance.
Ecosystem is the complex of a community of organisms interacting with one
another and with the chemical and physical factors of their environment. In
Colorado, the pinyon-juniper forest is an example of an ecosystem.
Economies in Colorado take many forms, and include those that are amenity-
based, such as tourism, recreation, real estate and others like industries; product-
based, which refer to forest products, mining and other extractive industries; as
well as those that are agriculturally based such as farming and ranching.
Ephemeral streams are streams that flow only during or immediately after
periods of precipitation.
Evapotranspiration is the combined diffusion of water vapor into the
atmosphere from transpiration from plants and evaporation from soil and water
surfaces.
Floodplain terrace are the lands outside the riparian zone that supports native
phreatophytes but still within the floodplain. Terraces are generally supportive of
xeric and mesic types of vegetation.
Foliar herbicide application refers to the application of herbicide to the
leaves of a plant usually through a spray.
Forb is a small, herbaceous (non-woody),broad-leaved vascular plant (excluding
grasses, rushes, sedges, etc.). For example, wild flowers are a type of forb.
Health refers to a condition where the system's parts and functions are
sustained over time and where the capacity for ecological self-repair is
maintained within a natural range of variability, allowing goals for sustainable
uses,values and services to be met.
Hydrologic cycle describes the continuum of the transfer of water from
precipitation to surface water and ground water,to storage and runoff, and to the
eventual return to the atmosphere by transpiration and evaporation.
Hydrologic processes refer to that part of the hydrologic cycle that includes
the amount and timing of stream flow, which in turn influences ecological
functions in the stream corridor.
Implementation refers to the development of teams and specific action items
to address the recommendations of this Plan as well as efforts to initiate"on-the-
ground efforts."
Integration means considering the other initiatives taking place as well as the
impacts of these on the larger ecosystem over the long term, and having this
consideration inform the effort.
Landscape means a spatial mosaic of several ecosystems,landforms,
watersheds and plant communities that are repeated in similar form across a
defined area irrespective of ownership or other artificial boundaries.
Mesic vegetation are plants that utilize soil moisture that is more readily
available than would be present in upland drier soils.
Partners are considered to be any State, federal, local, non-governmental,
individuals, industry, or private entities that cooperate in CHIP.
Phreatophyte refers to a deep-rooted plant that obtains its water from the
water table or the layer of soil just above it.
Restoration is the reestablishment of the structure and function of ecosystems.
It involves the recovery of ecosystem functions and processes in a degraded
habitat. The restoration process reestablishes the general structure, function,
and dynamic but self-sustaining behavior as closely as possible to pre-
disturbance conditions and functions while respecting private property rights,
state water law, existing infrastructure, and endangered species considerations.
Riparian is the geographically delineated areas with distinct resource values
that occur adjacent to rivers, streams, lakes, ponds,wetlands, and other water
bodies. Typical vegetation in the CHIP study area includes grasses, cottonwoods,
willows, and forbes.
State refers to Colorado state government and its agencies.
Stream Morphology refers to the study of the channel pattern and the channel
geometry at several points along a river channel, including the network of
tributaries within the drainage basin.
Sustainable refers to a level of human use of a natural resource that can
continue through time without diminishing the resource's productivity or
resilience.
Watershed refers to a region or land area that is drained by a single stream,
river or drainage network, and includes all of the land within the entire drainage
area. The Colorado River is an example of a large watershed. Examples of
smaller watersheds within the larger watershed is the Roan Creek drainage.
Xeric vegetation represents plants that are adapted to a dry environment.
References
Baum, B. R. 1978. The Genus Tamarix. Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, Jerusalem. 209 pp.
Bawazir,A.S., New Mexico State University, Personal communication, April
2003.
Bean, D. Director Palisade Insectary, Personal communication, March, 2007
Belcher, E. W. and R. P. Karrrfalt. 1979. Improved methods for testing the
viability of Russian olive seed. Journal of Seed Technology 4:57-64.
Belsky,A.J.,A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on
stream
and riparian ecosystems in the Western United States. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation.
Borell,A. E. 1962. Russian-olive for wildlife and other conservation uses. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA. Leafet No. 517.
Brown, C.R. 1990. Avian use of native and exotic riparian habitats on the Snake
River, Idaho. M.S. Thesis. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO. pp. 6o.
Busch, D. E., and S. D. Smith. 1993. Effects of fire on water and salinity relations
of riparian woody taxa. Oecologia 94:186-194.
Busch, D. E., and S. D. Smith. 1995. Mechanisms associated with decline of
woody species in riparian ecosystems of the Southwestern US. Ecological
Monographs 65: 347-370.
Busch, D. E., N. L. Ingraham, and S. D. Smith. 1992. Water-uptake in woody
riparian phreatophytes of the southwestern United States: a stable isotope study.
Ecological Applications 2: 450-459.
Caplan,T. 2002. Controlling Russian olives within cottonwood gallery forests
along the Middle Rio Grande floodplain (New Mexico). Ecological Restoration
20(2): 138-139.
Carman, J.G., and J.D. Brotherson. 1982. Comparison of sites infested and not
infested with saltceder (Tamarix pentandra) and Russian-olive (Elaeagnus
angustifolia). Weed Sci. 10:360-364.
Carpenter,A. 1998. Element Stewardship Abstract for Tamarix ramosissima
Lebedour, Tamarix pentandra Pallas, Tamarix chinensis Loureiro, and Tamarix
paruiflora De Candolle. The Nature Conservancy,Arlington,Virginia.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western
riparian
areas. Northwest Resources Information Center, Inc. Eagle Idaho.
Cleverly, J. R., S. D. Smith,A. Sala, and D. A. Devitt. 1997. Invasive capacity of
Tamarix-ramosissima in a Mojave desert floodplain : the role of drought.
Oecologia 111: 12-18.
Decamps, H.,A.M. Planty-Tabacchi, and E.Tabacchi. 1995. Changes in the
hydrological regime and invasions by plant species along riparian systems of the
Adour river, France. Regulated Rivers: Research &Management, 11:23-33.
DeLoach, J. 1997. Effects of Biological Control of Saltcedar(Tamarix
ramosissima) on Endangered Species: Biological Assessment. U.S. Department
of Agriculture,Temple, Texas.
DeLoach,J., R Carruthers, J. Lovich,T. Dudley, and S. Smith, 2000. "Ecological
Interactions in the Biological Control of Saltcedar(Tamarix spp.) in the United
States: Toward a New Understanding." Proceedings of the X International
Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, 4-14 July 1999, Montana State
University, Bozeman, Montana.
DeLoach, J., R Carruthers, J. Lovich,T. Dudley, and S. Smith, 2002. "Ecological
Interactions in the Biological Control of Saltcedar(Tamarix spp.) in the United
States: Toward a New Understanding" — Revised.
Ebinger, J. and L. Lehnen. 1981. Naturalized autumn olive in Illinois.
Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 74: 83-85.
Ellis, L. M. 1995. Bird use of salt cedar and cottonwood vegetation in the middle
Rio Grande valley of New Mexico, USA. Journal of Arid Environments 30:339-
349.
Gaskin, John F. 2002. Hybrid Tamarix widespread in U.S. invasion and
undetected in native Asian range. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 99. no. 17: 11256-11259.
Gaskin,J.F. and B.A. Schaal. 2002. Hybrid Tamarix widespread in US invasion
and undetected in native Asian range.
Graf, W.L. 1978. Fluvial adjustments to the spread of tamarisk in the Colorado
Plateau region. Geological Society of America Bulletin 89 :1491-1501.
Haber, E. 1999. Invasive Exotic Plants of Canada Fact Sheet No.14: Russian-
olive. National Botanical Services, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Hansen, N. E. 1901. Ornamentals for South Dakota. U.S. Experiment Station,
Brookings, SD, USA. Bulletin 72.
Hayes, B. 1976. Planting the Elaeagnus Russian and autumn olive for nectar.
American Bee Journal 116:74,82.
Horton,J. S., F. C. Mounts, and J. M. Kraft. 1960. Seed germination and seedling
establishment of phreatophyte species. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky
mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Paper
No. 48. 26 pp.
Hogue, E. J. and L. J. LaCroix. 1970. Seed dormancy of Russian olive
(Elaeagnus angustifolia L.). Journal of the American Society of Horticultural
Science 95:449-452.
Howe, W.H. and F.L. Knopf. 1991. On the imminent decline of Rio Grande
cottonwoods in central New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 36:218-224.
Katz, G. L. 2001. Fluvial Disturbance, flood control, and biological invasion in
Great Plains riparian forests. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Colorado, Boulder,
CO, USA.
King, J.P. and Bawazir, S.A. 2000. Riparian Evaporation Studies of the Middle
Rio Grande. Technical Completion report, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Kolb, Thomas E. 2001 "Water Use of Tamarisk and Native Riparian Trees."
Proceedings of the Tamarisk Symposium, September 26 — 27, 2001, Grand
Junction, Colorado.
Knopf, F.L., and T.E. Olson. 1984. Naturalization of Russian-olive; implications
to Rocky Mountain wildlife. Wildl. Soc. Bul. 12: 289-298.
Lesica, P. and S. Miles 1999. Russian olive invasion into cottonwood forests
along a regulated river in north-central Montana. Canadian Journal of Botany
77: 1077-1083.
Little, E. L. 1961. Sixty trees from foreign lands. U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC, USA. Agricultural Handbook No. 212.
Lonsdale, W. M. 1993. Rates of spread of an invading species Mimosa pigra in
northern Australia. J. of Ecology 81:513-521.
McDaniel, K.C., DiTomaso,J.M., Duncan, C.A. 2004. Tamarisk or Saltcedar
(Tamarix spp.) Galley proof for Allen Press.
Muzika, R.-M. and J.M. Swearingen. 1998. Russian-olive (Elaeagnus
angustifolia L.). PCA Mien Plant Working Group.
(http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/elanthtm).
National Invasive Species Council,Tamarisk Economics Impact Study, in
progress — January 2006.
Ohmart, R.D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing on fish
and
wildlife resources in western riparian habitats. Pages 245-279 In: Krausman,
P.R. (ed.).
1996. Range wildlife. Society for Range Management, Denver, CO.
Olson,T.E. and F.L. Knopf. 1986. Agency subsidization of a rapidly spreading
exotic. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 492-493.
Robinson, T. W. 1965. Introduction, spread, and aerial extent of salt cedar
(Tamarix) in the western states. Geological survey professional paper 491-A.
United States Government Printing Office, Washington.
Shafroth, P.B,J.M. Friedman, and L.S. Ischinger. 1995. Effects of salinity on
establishment of Populusfremontii(cottonwood) and Tamarix ramosissima
(salt cedar) in southwestern United States. Great Basin Naturalist 55:58-65.
Shafroth, P.B., G.T. Auble, J.C. Stromberg, and D.T. Patten. 1998.
Establishment of woody riparian vegetation in relation to annual patterns of
streamflow, Bill Williams River,Arizona. Wetlands 18:577-590.
Shafroth, P. B., G. T.Auble, and M. L. Scott. 1995. Germination and
establishment of native plains cottonwood (Populus deltoids Marshall subsp.
Monilifera) and the exotic Russian-olive (Elaeagns angustifolia). Conservation
Biology 9:169-175.
Sher, A. A. and D. L. Marshall. 2003. Competition between native Populus
deltoides and invasive Tamarix ramosissima and the implications of
reestablishing flooding disturbance. Conservation Biology 141744-1754•
Sher,A. A., D. L. Marshall, and S. A. Gilbert. 2000. Competition between native
Populus deltoides and invasive Tamarix ramosissima and the implications for
reestablishing flooding disturbance. Conservation Biology 14:1744.
Sher,A.A., Marshall, D.L., and Taylor, J.P. 2002. Establishment patterns of
native Populus and Salix in the presence of invasive, non-native Tamarix.
Ecological Applications 12: 760-772.
Shishkin, B. K. (ed.). 1949. Flora of the U.S.S.R. Institute of the Academy of
Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Moscow, USSR.
Smith, S.D., D.A. Devitt,A. Sala,J. R. Cleverly, and D. E. Busch. 1998. Water
relations of riparian plants from warm desert regions. Wetlands 18: 687-696.
Springuel, I.; M Sheded, and K.J. Murphy. 1997. The plant biodiversity of the
Wadi Allaqi Biosphere Reserve (Egypt): Impact of Lake Nasser on a desert
Wadi ecosystem. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:1259-1275.
Sternberg, G. 1996. Elaeagnus umbellata. P. 54. in J. M. Randall and J.
Marinelli (eds.) Invasive Plants: Weeds of the Global Garden. Brooklyn Botanic
Garden, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Stromberg,J. 1998. Dynamics of Fremont cottonwood(Populus fremontii) and
salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis) populations along the San Pedro River,Arizona.
Journal of Arid Environments 4o: 133-155.
Stromberg, J. C., R. Tiller, and B. Richter. 1996. Effects of groundwater decline
on riparian vegetation of semiarid regions: The San Pedro,Arizona. Ecological
Applications 6:113-131.
Taylor, J. P, D. B. Wester, and L.M. Smith. 1999. Soil disturbance, flood
management, and riparian woody plant establishment in the Rio Grande
floodplain. Wetlands 19:372-382.
Tesky, J.L. 1992. Elaeagnus angustifolia. In: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Res. Sta., Fire Sci Lab. (2001, July). Fire Effects Information System,
[Online]. Available: httu://www.fs.fed.us/database/feisL.
Tu, M. 2003. Element Stewardship Abstract for Elaeagnus angustifolia L.,
Russian olive, oleaster. The Nature Conservancy.
(http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/elaeang.html).
US Department of Energy, 2005. "Remediation of the Moab Uranium Mill
Tailings, Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah, Final Environmental Impact
Statement."July 2005.
USDI-BOR 1995. "Vegetation Management Study: Lower Colorado River, Phase
II." U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado River,
Draft Report, Boulder City, Nevada.
USDA. 1974. Seeds of wood plants in the United States. USDA Agr. Handbook
No. 450.
USDA. 2002. Technical Notes: Plant Materials No. 47. History, Biology,
Ecology, Suppression and Revegetation of Russian-Olive Sites (Elaeagnus
angustifolia L.). Available:
http://www.usgs.nau.edu/SWEPIC/factsheets/ELAN.APRS.pdf.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. "Designation of Critical Habitat for the
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailli extimus); Final Rule",
Federal Register(50 CFR Part 17), October 19, 2005.
Weeks, K, H. Weaver, G. Campbell and B. Tanner, 1987. Water use by saltcedar
and by replacement vegetation in the Pecos River floodplain between Acme and
Artesia, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Zimmerman, J. 1997. Ecology and Distribution of Tamarix chinensis Lour and T.
paruiflora D.C., Tamariccea. Southwest Exotic Plant Mapping Program, U.S.
Geological Survey.
Hello