The Dolores River below McPhee is part of Interior’s ‘America’s Great Outdoors Highlighted River Projects’
May 24, 2012
Here’s the link to the Department of Interior’s America’s Great Outdoors Highlighted River Projects webpage. Here’s the link to the Dolores River release. Here’s an excerpt:
The Dolores River Partnership was formed in 2008 and is a two state, citizen driven partnership with the goal of restoring approximately 200 miles of the Dolores River from McPhee Reservoir to its confluence with the Colorado River in Utah. Project goals include improving public safety, the removal of tamarisk and other noxious weeds, improving fish habitat, the development of education and stewardship opportunities, and expanding opportunities for youth employment.
This citizen driven project is focused on restoring riparian vegetation through the removal of tamarisk and other invasive species along the Dolores River and the planting of native cottonwoods and willows. Youth groups will assist with invasive species control and native species planting. Tamarisk removal and native vegetation plantings will reduce the risk of wildfire, increase in-stream water flows, and improve stream bank stability thus improving habitat conditions for native fish species.
Thanks to KUNC (Emily Boyer) for the heads up.
An October tamarisk control operation on the North Fork of the Gunnison River used cutting and herbicide treatments
November 6, 2011
From the Delta County Independent (Kathy Browning):
On Oct. 21, volunteers worked on a half-mile of the easement. Tamarisk, Russian olive and Siberian elm were cut out and stumps of the invasives were treated with herbicide. Tamarisk and Russian olive were introduced in the 19th century as ornamentals. Tamarisk is now seen as a problem as it out-competes native plants for moisture and displaces them along river eco-systems in the West.
Webb Callicutt, Delta County weed coordinator, trained volunteers on how to apply the herbicide.
Rosa Brey of the Colorado Canyons Association explained why it was partnering on this project. “We are a Grand Junction based group and are looking to expand our membership and our volunteer base in Delta and Montrose counties,” Brey said. “The other reason we are involved is because this river flows into the Gunnison which flows through several of our conservation areas. So if we can get tamarisk eradicated on the upstream sections of the river, then there will be fewer seeds that will flow down the river and down into the conservation areas.”
Tamarisk control: Federal, state and local officials complete clearing 3,000 acres in the Arkansas River valley near the Kansas border
April 22, 2011
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“Some people ask why we’re starting at the bottom when it spreads downstream,” said Henry Schnabel, a Prowers County commissioner. “In our case, Holly would be inundated if there was a backup because the river channel is clogged.”[...]
Michael Daskam, of the Holly Natural Resources Conservation Service office, Wednesday gave the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District board an overview on the progress of the Prowers County tamarisk project. The Lower Ark board voted to support the project with $30,000 in the coming year. Schnabel said not all of the funding may be necessary, because the program requires private landowners to sign up. The project has been more cost-effective than anticipated, costing a total of $264,690 to spray 3,172 acres by helicopter over the past two years, or $83.50 an acre, Daskam said…
The benefits include better water quality and quantity. The U.S. Geological Survey last year reported tamarisk water savings have not been proven, but did not rule out the possibility in a report released last year, Daskam said…
This year, the program will focus on spot spraying, catching areas that were not sprayed by helicopter, such as clumps of tamarisk growing under cottonwoods. A revegetation workshop is also planned to discuss the best ways for restoring native plants, Daskam said. Other partners in the project include the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Southeastern Colorado Resource Conservation and Development, State Land Board, Northeast Prowers Conservation District, Division of Wildlife and Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association. Kansas also is working on the problem just across the state line.
Tamarisk control: The Tamarisk Coalition scores $25,000 from Xcel
December 15, 2010
From the Grand Junction Free Press:
The Tamarisk Coalition will be accepting $25,000 from the Xcel Energy Foundation for the continued restoration activities at Watson Island 9 a.m., Thursday, Dec. 16, at the Western Colorado Botanical Gardens. The Tamarisk Coalition will be using these funds in partnership with the City of Grand Junction, Western Colorado Math and Science Center, Mesa State College, the Botanical Gardens, and the Western Colorado Conservation Corps to reach the ecological objectives for this site which include replacing invasive plant species with native plants to benefit wildlife habitat.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
In 2006, SB179 had created the Water Supply Reserve Account, and the roundtables were being asked to bring forward projects that would use money to identify water needs, evaluate available water supplies or build projects. There weren’t hard-and-fast guidelines and proposals had to pass muster of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Three proposals moved ahead that day: the Arkansas Valley Conduit, tamarisk removal and a study of recharge in the Upper Black Squirrel Aquifer in El Paso County. Since then, more than $4 million has been brought into the Arkansas River basin for 21 water projects or activities through the roundtable. The Rio Grande basin also has received about $4 million Like a snowball, those funds have leveraged more money as they were spent. Statewide, $26 million in grants from the account have been matched by $50 million from other sources…
BASIN BENEFITS
Since 2007, the Arkansas River Basin has received more than $4 million from a state fund established in 2006 to fund water activities. Projects include:
2007
Arkansas Valley Conduit, $200,000
Tamarisk control, $50,000
Upper Black Squirrel recharge, $45,200
Groundwater conference, $24,721
Fountain Creek Vision Task Force, $75,000
Round Mountain Water District, $120,000
Lower Ark Rotational Fallowing, $150,0002008
Upper Big Sandy water balance, $45,000
Transfers subcommittee, $23,860
Las Animas water, $300,000
Zebra mussels, Lake Pueblo, $1 million
Colorado State University basinwide investigation, $600,000
Zero liquid discharge (reverse-osmosis brine), $725,000
Upper Ark water monitoring devices, $285,0002009
Headwaters diversion improvements, $58,000
Non-consumptive needs quantification, $148,975
Fountain Creek sediment removal demonstration, $225,000
Groundwater policy, aquifer storage and recovery, $225,0002010
Upper Arkansas water balance, $190,000
Fountain Creek flathead chub study, $35,000
Flaming Gorge Task Force study, $40,000
More IBCC — basin roundtables coverage here.
Montezuma County: Tamarisk forum recap
September 4, 2010
From the Cortez Journal (Kimberly Benedict):
The evening forum, held at the Calvin Denton Room at Empire Electric, was presented by the Dolores Conservation District in partnership with Colorado State University Extension. “Our main focus is to hear from everybody what you want to be doing with tamarisk in the county,” said Steve Miles, of the Dolores Conservation District. “We really want to hear input as to what you want to see the conservation district do.”[...]
Miles, Clark Tate, with the Tamarisk Coalition, and Dan Bean, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, gave brief presentations on the progress of tamarisk eradication in the west, focusing on the use of tamarisk beetle biocontrol. First released in 2001 in experimental sites, tamarisk beetles are now widespread throughout Colorado and Utah. The small beetles are native to China and Kazakhstan and were part of a $1 million USDA project aimed at finding a biocontrol agent for tamarisk. “The tamarisk biocontrol project started in the ’70s with a look at tamarisk and the problems and potential for developing agents for control,” Bean said. “At the time their was a belief you could not control trees and shrubs with an insect so they shelved it. In the late ’80s they reconsidered.”
Tamarisk beetles do not kill plants directly, they consume the foliage resulting in stressed plants that have difficulty greening after a few seasons, according to Tate. The beetles have left a wake of dead tamarisk in their path in Nevada, resulting in a 75 percent mortality rate. “We are seeing a lot of stressed out tamarisk,” Tate said. “It is hard to tell if they are actually dead, but just looking at them, they are very, very stressed. It is time to start thinking about the void that is going to be created.”
Montezuma County: Tamarisk control update
August 8, 2010
From the Cortez Journal (Melinda Green):
The beetle is working in McElmo Canyon, stripping the leaves from tamarisks, then flying away to another stand of tamarisks. The beetles may return when the tamarisk grows more leaves, until in three to four years, the tree dies, Miles said. That gives time to revegetate with more desirable plants.
However, in June, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ended its program of releasing the beetles in 13 states, including Colorado. The move came after the Center for Biological Diversity and the Maricopa Audubon Society sued, saying that release of the beetle in southern Utah in 2006 had destroyed tamarisk trees containing endangered southwestern willow flycatcher nests. When tamarisks crowded out the native willow preferred by the flycatcher, the bird moved to tamarisk trees, Miles said. He believes a better strategy would be to reintroduce the willow in areas where the beetles have killed the tamarisk. The beetles already released continue to thrive and help with tamarisk control, he said.
With an estimated 9,000 acres of tamarisk in Montezuma County in 2005, organizers have been successful in slowing its progress, Miles says. “We’ve definitely made progress (controlling the tamarisk locally),” he said. “You don’t see much around McPhee Lake. We treated (chemically) 200 acres in 2005 above McPhee. We’re helping keep tamarisk out of 50,000 to 60,000 acres of agricultural land in the county, spread through irrigation water. The Conservation District, National Resource Conservation Service, private agencies, and state agencies spent half a million dollars here in the last seven years.”
Work was also done on the upper reaches of McElmo Creek and the Hawkins Preserve. In addition, Miles said the Mancos Conservation District and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe have been working to control tamarisk on the Mancos River.
“We’re working on revegetation projects with landowners to find the best way to get appropriate plants back in,” he said. “Most of the time there’s enough native seed source to come back in. Nature abhors a vacuum, so if we take out one noxious weed, we don’t want another noxious one to come in.”
From the La Junta Tribune-Democrat (Bette McFarren):
The object of the letter and the grant is to obtain an additional $18,000 in matching funds to continue the tamarisk eradication. The Colorado Forest Service has had good luck with Habitat, a herbicide that can be applied from the air, using a helicopter, or from an ATV. The herbicide takes 3 years to deplete all carbohydrates in the root system. Last year it became substantially more cost effective when the original patent ran out and other sources than the inventor could manufacture it. The cut-stumps method of application is less efficient in that it is extremely labor-intensive and does not leave the tree skeletons for wildlife habitat or beneficial recycling. Mulching and chipping are options to remove the remains of the tamarisk.
From The Aspen Times (Mead Gruver):
The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service last week formally ended its program of releasing saltcedar leaf beetles to eat saltcedar, also known as tamarisk, in 13 states: Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Montana, Washington and Wyoming.
The reason for the program’s demise is the southwestern willow flycatcher, an endangered species found in scattered pockets around the Southwest. The bird nests in saltcedar, as well as in native willows and cottonwoods.
Concern that beetles could destroy much of the bird’s nesting habitat was why the USDA excluded New Mexico, Arizona and California from the beetle-release program, which began in 2005.
Now, scientists think the beetles are likely to spread from the states where they were introduced. They say it could be just a matter of time before the insects chew through saltcedar all the way down the Colorado River drainage in Arizona and eastern California.
From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:
The city of Grand Junction removed tamarisk and fostered four acres of wetland more than a year ago along the river near Riverside and Redlands parkways. The new wetland area was created after seven-tenths of an acre of wetland was eliminated along Patterson Road between 24 1/2 and 25 1/2 roads during the Ranchmen’s Ditch project. The project involved installing pipes that would guide rain water from storms on the Bookcliffs to the Colorado River without causing flooding along the way. Within months, the tamarisk in the new wetland area was back. The city considered spraying a herbicide to kill the new growth, City Project Engineer Dave Donohue said. “We concluded if we did that, we’d have so much herbicide on new wetlands plants and water, it would be a disaster,” Donohue said.
So, Donohue pursued a different tamarisk-killer: the tamarisk beetle. Palisade Insectary Director Dan Bean released 7,000 tamarisk beetles at the site two weeks ago and another 1,000 Wednesday. Eggs and larvae already are appearing this week, showing the beetles are spreading into their new habitat and leaving offspring behind. The beetles regulate their numbers based on available food, Bean said, so he doesn’t expect them to overpopulate the area. Bean said the beetles aren’t likely to enter homes, and they don’t eat anything but tamarisk.
The insectary is one of a few in the country and the only one in Colorado, Bean said. It’s run by the Colorado Department of Agriculture and was placed in Palisade in the 1940s to provide predatory wasps to eat oriental fruit moths, which were destroying peach crops. The insectary continues to collect insects from inside and sometimes outside the state to help farmers, ranchers and gardeners fight pests across Colorado. The tamarisk beetles released along the Colorado River were collected in De Beque Canyon.
Tamarisk control: Leaf beetle introductions in Southwestern Colorado workshop Saturday, June 19
June 3, 2010
From The Telluride Watch:
The Colorado Native Plant Society hosts a free seminar and field trip on tamarisk beetle control introductions in Delta County Saturday, June 19, 9 a.m.-12 p.m., with “Beetle Wrangler” Mike Drake, executive director of Painted Sky, discussing the history of tamarisk beetle introductions, how they control tamarisk, the logistical and financial advantages and what has been achieved in Delta County. After a classroom session, the group will tour Confluence Park in Delta to see firsthand results.
Tamarisk or salt cedar is on Colorado Department of Agriculture’s B list of noxious weeds. B list plants need to be controlled to stop their spread. Despite recent U.S. Geological Survey study findings that tamarisk isn’t quite the water hog it was long believed it to be, it still chokes riverbanks, reduces native plants and biodiversity, especially bird species, and tends to take over the landscape. Its presence increases soil salinity, thwarting competition from other plants.
Attendees should wear walking shoes and bring a lunch. You need not be a member of Colorado Native Plant Society to attend, but seminar is limited to 15. Meet at Painted Sky office, in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 690 Industrial Blvd in Delta. Call or email Gay Austin to register or for more information: austinaceae37@roadrunner.com or 970/641-6264.
Tamarisk control: Tamarisk consumptive use is on a par with native cottonwoods and willows
May 31, 2010
From The Durango Herald (Dale Rodebaugh):
…decades and millions of dollars of eradication projects later, a report released April 28 says that conventional wisdom had it all wrong. Tamarisk was getting a bad rap – it doesn’t use any more water than the native species it crowds out – cottonwood and willows. The report, done jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, contains no new research. Rather, it’s a review and compilation of research dating back half a century. “The report is a review of the science starting in the 1960s,” said David Merritt, a riparian plant ecologist with the Forest Service in Fort Collins. The review found the premise that tamarisk was a water hog just didn’t wash, Merritt said.
Eradication efforts worked from the assumption that if tamarisk were removed there would be more water for other users, including plant species, wildlife, livestock and humans. “They weren’t able to quantify any real water savings by removing tamarisk,” Merritt said. “In certain cases, apparent (water) increases disappeared when vegetation came back…
There is relatively little tamarisk around Durango but it flourishes along the banks of the Animas, La Plata and San Juan rivers at the New Mexico line, La Plata County Weed Manager Rod Cook said. In Montezuma County where tamarisk is more abundant, a leaf beetle is munching tamarisk to death. The beetle is believed to have migrated to Montezuma County from Utah or from a beetle release four years ago on the Dolores River. Merritt said tamarisk peters out at around 7,000 feet elevation. Durango is at 6,512 feet elevation.
Tamarisk control: The Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District ponies up $36,000 for herbicide operations
May 21, 2010
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
One of the largest tamarisk removal projects in the Arkansas River basin apparently was successful last year and sponsors are ready to go after some more. The Lower Arkansas River Water Conservancy District board voted unanimously Wednesday to contribute $36,000 toward this year’s $130,000 project to use helicopter spraying to kill tamarisk in Prowers County. Last year, 1,414 acres of mostly private land was sprayed at a cost of $117,000 in the Arkansas River flood plain, said Nolan Daskam, of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The estimate for the cost of the project was $200 per acre, but was completed for $84 per acre. The price of the chemical used, Habitat, dropped because of competition from a generic brand, Daskam explained. The project also pinpointed spraying through use of global positioning system technology, he added. “I think if we get a handle on this, we can keep it in control,” Daskam said. “We can make progress up to the county line and into Bent County…
The project’s goals include restoring native vegetation, improving wildlife habitat and reducing the flood hazard from clogged river and stream channels, Daskam said. There are other methods of tamarisk removal in Prowers County as well, including grinding and bulldozing, with follow-up hand spraying to kill plants that regenerate. “Mechanical control still has its place,” Daskam said. “For some landowners, it’s the only option.”
About 45,000 beetles that eat tamarisk leaves have been released in Prowers County. “In October, we found them (beetles released earlier in the year), and they were thriving,” Daskam said. “We’re waiting to see how they over-wintered. It’s the cheapest method, so we’re hoping they’re successful.”
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The Arkansas River basin has the highest number of acres infested with tamarisk in Colorado, and much of it is in the upland areas, Edelmann said. “The [recent U.S. Geological Survey scientific assessment] doesn’t mean there weren’t water savings from tamarisk removal, just that they couldn’t be detected,” Edelmann said. “That’s not to say there could be some savings in the upland areas of the Arkansas River basin.”
Tamarisk consumptive use was reported as high as 9 feet per year in studies from the 1940s-70s, but the scientific methods did not take into account weather factors. Newer studies show the probable consumptive use is closer to 3-4 feet per year…
There could be a savings to the river by increasing the amount of water available to the Arkansas River, but any measurement would have to look at all components of the water budget — the water table, canal leakage and weather factors. “The river is a drain, so you should be able to see a net difference,” Edelmann said. “A lot of variables come into play.” So far, there have not been comprehensive studies showing the water-saving benefits of tamarisk removal in the Arkansas River basin. There is some anecdotal evidence,” Edelmann said. “The wetlands returned at Bent’s Fort when the tamarisk was cleared.” There are other benefits, such as improved flood protection in the river channel and improved wildlife habitat, Edelmann said.
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
“In a few cases, clearing saltcedar has resulted in temporary, measurable increases in streamflow,” a report by the U.S. Geological Survey states. “Most studies, however, have found that although evapotranspiration may be decreased by large-scale removal of saltcedar, no significant long-term changes in streamflow are detected as a result of vegetation removal.” The report is a scientific assessment ordered under the Saltcedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act of 2006. It reviews past studies in order to assess the scientific information available about tamarisks and Russian olives, while providing a common background for those applying for federal grants.
In Colorado, the Arkansas River basin is the most heavily infested with tamarisk, with 69 percent of the state’s total acreage. Many of the trees were planted in the 1900s as a means of erosion control. The trees have spread over time, taking over cottonwood stands in the river beds and colonizing upland areas as well. More than 67,000 acres are affected…
Today, the [Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District] is coordinating efforts throughout the valley under the Arkansas River Watershed Invasive Plant Plan. In addition to water usage, the trees have been identified as crowding out beneficial native plants and restricting flood control channels. According to the project’s website, tamarisk use 76,600 acre-feet of water per year, and infilling of partially infested areas eventually could increase that amount to 198,000 acre-feet…
The report acknowledges that tamarisk stands spread areas of vegetation into upland areas as well as along the banks, but states that simply removing the trees does not increase the water supply. Instead, the natural vegetation that replaces tamarisk may use the same amount or even more water, nullifying any water gain. Evaporation could actually increase if shading by tamarisk is reduced. Water made available to groundwater is used by other plant species, and does not increase long-term streamflow, the USGS report states.
From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dave Buchanan):
A recent study by the U.S. Geological Service says tamarisk, commonly known as saltcedar, consumes no more water than native plants such as cottonwoods and willows. Also, the report says tamarisk-dominated landscapes aren’t totally inhospitable to wildlife. Reptiles, amphibians and birds, including the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, use and breed in tamarisk stands. The report was requested by Congress asking for a review of the scientific literature about tamarisk and Russian olive to assess the impacts, distribution, water consumption and control methods for the two invasive species.
Click through to if you want to download the report. Here’s the pitch from the authors:
The primary intent of this document is to provide the science assessment called for under The Saltcedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–320; the Act). A secondary purpose is to provide a common background for applicants for prospective demonstration projects, should funds be appropriated for this second phase of the Act. This document synthesizes the state-of-the-science on the following topics: the distribution and abundance (extent) of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) in the Western United States, potential for water savings associated with controlling saltcedar and Russian olive and the associated restoration of occupied sites, considerations related to wildlife use of saltcedar and Russian olive habitat or restored habitats, methods to control saltcedar and Russian olive, possible utilization of dead biomass following removal of saltcedar and Russian olive, and approaches and challenges associated with revegetation or restoration following control efforts. A concluding chapter discusses possible long-term management strategies, needs for additional study, potentially useful field demonstration projects, and a planning process for on-the-ground projects involving removal of saltcedar and Russian olive.
More Tamarisk control coverage here.
USGS Fort Collins Science Center: Saltcedar and Russian Olive control demonstration act science assessment
April 29, 2010
Click through to if you want to download the report. Here’s the pitch from the authors:
The primary intent of this document is to provide the science assessment called for under The Saltcedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–320; the Act). A secondary purpose is to provide a common background for applicants for prospective demonstration projects, should funds be appropriated for this second phase of the Act. This document synthesizes the state-of-the-science on the following topics: the distribution and abundance (extent) of saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) in the Western United States, potential for water savings associated with controlling saltcedar and Russian olive and the associated restoration of occupied sites, considerations related to wildlife use of saltcedar and Russian olive habitat or restored habitats, methods to control saltcedar and Russian olive, possible utilization of dead biomass following removal of saltcedar and Russian olive, and approaches and challenges associated with revegetation or restoration following control efforts. A concluding chapter discusses possible long-term management strategies, needs for additional study, potentially useful field demonstration projects, and a planning process for on-the-ground projects involving removal of saltcedar and Russian olive.
From the Los Angeles Times (Bettina Boxall):
Federal, state and county agencies across the West have uprooted saltcedar in the belief that erasing it from riverbanks would save water. “In the West we’re always looking for ways to stretch our water supply,” Brown said. “And sometimes it takes a while for the science to catch up with the common belief.”
“If the primary interest was in stretching water supply,” he added, “there are a number of other ways to conserve and augment water supply … that are much more reliable and predictable.”
Here’s a look at the costs involved in beating down the weed, from The Lamar Ledger. From the article:
In 2009, 1,414 acres of Tamarisk were sprayed at a cost of $116,748.60. Of that amount, $83,686.86 came from the NRCS EQIP, $7,500 came from NRCS WHIP, $7,405 from the State Land Board, $2,949.69 from the Division of Wildlife and $13,156 from the Colorado Water Conservancy Board. Per acre, tamarisk spraying cost $82.57. Five percent of EQIP dollars were reserved for maintenance on NRCS funded areas and WHIP funds will be used for maintenance on CWCB funded areas.
Areas under consideration for tamarisk removal include the Clay Creek tributary and the Arkansas River west between Holly and Granada.
Here’s the release from the USGS (Peter Soeth, Pat Shafroth, Curt Brown):
Long considered heavy water users and poor wildlife habitat, non-native saltcedar and Russian olive trees that have spread along streams and water bodies in the West may not be as detrimental to wildlife and water availability as believed.
In a U.S. Geological Survey report requested by Congress and released today, scientists conducted a review of the scientific literature to assess the existing state of the science on the distribution and spread, water consumption, and control methods for saltcedar (also called tamarisk) and Russian olive. They also assessed the considerations related to wildlife use and the challenges associated with revegetation and restoration following control efforts.
The report was a collaboration among the USGS, the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Forest Service, and other federal agencies and universities to assess and summarize a large number of previously published studies.
see caption belowOne notable finding is that native trees such as cottonwoods and willows along western rivers typically consume as much water as non-native saltcedar and Russian olive. Generally, the report noted, removal of saltcedar from floodplain areas along rivers leads to replacement by other vegetation that consumes roughly equal amounts of water. Therefore, removal of saltcedar from these areas is unlikely to produce measurable water savings once replacement revegetation becomes established, report authors wrote.
“None of the published studies to date, which include projects removing very large areas of saltcedar, have demonstrated production of significant additional water for human use,” said Curt Brown, Director of Research for the Bureau of Reclamation. However, the authors note that saltcedar and Russian olive can also grow on river terraces that are too high and dry for cottonwoods and willows. Some scientists have suggested that, on these sites, revegetation with native dry-site species could save some water for human use. But, the effectiveness of such an approach has not been demonstrated.
Similarly, although it has long been assumed that these non-native trees harm streamside habitat and wildlife productivity, research evaluated in the report indicates this isn’t always true. Many reptiles, amphibians, and birds use habitat dominated by saltcedar and Russian olive. Even the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher frequently breeds in saltcedar stands.
However, according to the report, saltcedar-dominated landscapes do not provide suitable habitat for more specialized birds, such as woodpeckers and birds that live in cavities. Dense tracts of pure saltcedar are typically unfavorable for most wildlife, and the report notes that many birds still prefer native cottonwood or willow habitat. Other negative impacts of dense stands of these introduced species can include impeded access to riverside recreational areas, increased wildfire hazard, and clogging of irrigation ditches.
Saltcedar and Russian olives are now the third and fourth most common streamside plants in 17 western states. The species have been the focus of significant removal efforts along some western rivers, such as the Rio Grande and Pecos River.
Plant removal techniques range from use of herbicides and bulldozers to biological controls such as insects. Once the invasive plants are killed or removed, effective restoration depends on replacing them with plant species that meet the specific goals of the planned restoration, the report said.
“The vegetation that replaces salt cedar following its removal, with or without restoration actions, will influence the quality of wildlife habitat, amount of water use and other ecological conditions,” said Pat Shafroth, a USGS scientist and lead editor of the report.
Site restoration, however, can be challenging and costly, depending on the size of the area and the methods used. Restoring key river processes, such as natural patterns of high and low flows, can help re-establish native vegetation and other important ecosystem features over larger areas than is possible with site-specific restoration, he added.
The authors highlight areas where further study could advance understanding of invasive plant control and restoration, including effects on wildlife habitat and water use. “Research and monitoring could be particularly important in the context of biological control of saltcedar,” Shafroth said. “The beetle that has been released for biological control has been defoliating saltcedar and spreading rapidly in some watersheds. We really need to understand the effects of biocontrol on these ecosystems, to better inform river and riparian restoration.”
The report provides a summary of the latest science and is expected to be helpful to organizations that undertake the management of saltcedar and Russian olive.
The report, Saltcedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act Science Assessment, was completed to fulfill requirements in the Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-320).
The full report, USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5247, is available online along with USGS Fact Sheet 2009-3110 that summarizes the findings.
Montrose County Commissioners support the Lower Dolores River Working Group’s proposals
April 15, 2010
From the Montrose Daily Press (Katharhynn Heidelberg):
Those supporting alternate plans to protect the Lower Dolores River can count Montrose County in. Montrose commissioners are supporting the Lower Dolores River Working Group’s efforts to develop protections for the river that also protect private property and water rights, the commission decided in a resolution last week. Parts of the Lower Dolores, which flows through Montrose County’s West End, are listed as “suitable” for federal Wild and Scenic River designation.
More Dolores River watershed coverage here.
Uncompahgre Watershed Partnership meeting Wednesday
April 11, 2010
From the Montrose Daily Press:
The new Uncompahgre Watershed Partnership will meet from 4 to 6 p.m. Wednesday at DMEA in Montrose. The meeting is open to the public. Partners will review more than 50 years worth of water quality data on the Uncompahgre River, from its source at Lake Como to the mouth at Delta. This will provide water resource specialists, city planners, agency experts and citizen groups a scientific foundation from which to establish watershed goals…
For more information, e-mail sarah@coloradowater.org or call 303-408-1312.
Arkansas River Watershed Tamarisk Workshop recap
April 1, 2010
From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):
The workshop attracted 86 participants from all parts of the valley as part of the Arkansas River Invasive Plants Plan, an effort launched in 2007 by the Southeastern district and 30 partners to aid in restoring land taken over by tamarisk…
While the strategies vary in different parts of the basin, the basic lessons are the same:
Most have stopped talking about eradication and are looking at knocking back infested areas to the point where natural vegetation will have a change.
- Many partners are needed in projects, as well as the cooperation of landowners. Not all landowners want to remove tamarisk and may even value their presence as windbreaks.
- One swipe at the problem may get rid of 90 percent of the invasive trees, but follow-up efforts are needed. Complete restoration can depend on how well native vegetation takes hold.M.“Complete eradication is pretty much impossible,” said Mike Eichenberry of the U.S. Forest Service, which has been eliminating between 500-800 acres of tamarisk each year since 2004 on the Comanche grasslands…
In North La Junta, a flood control district is using a different method for a different purpose, said Mike Taylor of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Tamarisk and willows have constricted the channel of the Arkansas River and reduced its ability to protect North La Junta from floods. The river has filled with about 15 feet of sediment since the 1965 flood, and the goal is to widen the channel to 300 feet. That should accommodate a 25- to 50-foot flood and avoid a repeat of flooding in 1999. The district, NRCS and other partners are using a root rake — large teeth attached to the blade of a bulldozer — to dig out tamarisks to a depth of two feet. “Once you get at them deep enough, they will not regenerate,” Taylor said. The willows are tougher, and like tamarisk hold soil in banks against erosion. Taylor laughed that it was the first time in his career that he’d been involved with a project trying to encourage erosion, saying a small flood would help scour the river. And while the area at first looks like a “moonscape,” native plants come back, and local residents are enjoying the effect. “Each spring we’re seeing people picnicking and enjoying the river. They say they haven’t seen the river in years,” Taylor said…
Killing tamarisk by any means will take years, but they most likely won’t come back as strong, said Anna Sher, a revegetation expert from the University of Denver and Denver Botanical Gardens. “Managing for native species will result in less tamarisk cover,” Sher said.
Cortez: Dolores River Dialogue meeting recap
March 25, 2010
From the Cortez Journal (Kimberly Benedict):
Representatives from every major stakeholder group in the Dolores River watershed flooded the Dolores Water Conservancy District offices Tuesday for the first full meeting of the Dolores River Dialogue since October 2008. Among the items on the agenda were a presentation on the progress of the Lower Dolores Plan Working Group and a discussion of DRD restructuring. Presentations were also given on native fish populations in the Dolores, recent findings regarding salinity, the work done by the Dolores River Restoration Partnership and information on the 319 Watershed Study…
Created to examine alternatives to a Wild and Scenic River designation for the Dolores River, the group has spent the last year identifying and brainstorming around the plethora of issues involved in river protection. In early December, the group moved into the recommendation phase of the project, mindful of a June 2010 deadline to present recommendations to the Dolores Public Lands Office. “They have come up with 15 consensus recommendations,” [Facilitator Marsha Porter-Norton] said. “The recommendations are pretty solid, but this isn’t the report of the group. I would call them the bulk, but there could be some more recommendations arising.”[...]
The initial recommendations put forward by the group include a desire to continue monitoring and documenting priority archaeology and cultural resources; wildfire management by the Dolores Public Lands Office; the denial of Bradfield Bridge as a launch site at the present time; allowing a viable put-in/take-out to remain in place in the Slickrock area, although a partnership is needed to meet various needs; management of the Big Gyp recreation site rather than decommissioning the site; a continuation of the “first come/first served” policy around usage of campsites; continued partnerships for the management of tamarisk and other invasive plants; and maintaining current management practices of the four-wheel-drive road along the river from the pump station to Slickrock. Through the recommendation process, the group concluded that primary river protection must be secured to ensure the efficacy of the other action steps. “The key thing they have decided is the need for special legislation that would set up some type of area in the Lower Dolores,” Porter-Norton said. “This was arrived at by consensus at the March meeting – something that would be alternative to the Wild and Scenic designation…
In seeking an alternative to Wild and Scenic designation, the group finds itself balancing the need for environmental protection against the desires of recreational use and private land ownership. “There are really two things,” Porter-Norton said. “One is to protect the area, and yet it would also respect the economic development and private property rights. I think the group understands that the area needs to be protected and also that there are a lot of private interests involved.”[...]
The next meeting of the Dolores River Dialogue will take place in the fall. The Lower Dolores Plan Working Group will meet next at 5:30 p.m. April 19, at the Dolores Water Conservancy District. For more information, contact Porter-Norton at 247-8306. On the web: Dolores River Dialogue, http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/drd/.
Prowers County: Tamarisk control update
March 18, 2010
From The Lamar Ledger:
Grant funding in the amount of $24,343.65 from the Colorado Water Conservancy Board is available, but funding from the county, Natural Resources Conservation Service Environmental Quality Incentive Program (NRCS EQIP), NRCS Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP),State Land Board and Colorado Division of Wildlife funding is yet to be defined. In 2009, 1,414 acres of Tamarisk were sprayed at a cost of $116,748.60. Of that amount, $83,686.86 came from the NRCS EQIP, $7,500 came from NRCS WHIP, $7,405 from the State Land Board, $2,949.69 from the Division of Wildlife and $13,156 from the Colorado Water Conservancy Board. Per acre, tamarisk spraying cost $82.57…
Areas under consideration for tamarisk removal include the Clay Creek tributary and the Arkansas River west between Holly and Granada.
Arkansas Valley: Tamarisk control workshop March 30
March 14, 2010
From The Pueblo Chieftain:
The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado State Forest Service, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service are sponsoring a technical workshop on tamarisk control and restoration methodology. The workshop will be 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. March 30 at the Southeastern district office, 31717 United Ave…
There is no cost to attend the workshop and lunch will be provided. Contact Jean Van Pelt, jean@secwcd.com or 719-948-2023.
From the La Junta Tribune Democrat:
The Tamarisk Coalition’ First President’s Award is given in memory of Pete Larson, the Tamarisk Coalition’s first president to honor his dedication to restoring natural resources through the application of science, education, and volunteerism. The individual selected for this award has demonstrated the same level of commitment on their project through their volunteer efforts, incorporation of education and use of science in their work or through their project. On Jan. 13, Shelly Simmons (formerly VanLandingham) with the Colorado State Forest Service – La Junta office was nominated and received this distinguished award at the Tamarisk Symposium in Grand Junction. Attached is a photo of Shelly Simmons receiving the award from the Tamarisk Coalition President, Dr. Anna Sher.
In the award nomination form, her nominator described Simmons’ contribution, saying, “Shelly Simmons has spearheaded the tamarisk control and restoration efforts for over seven years in Southeast Colorado within the Arkansas River Basin. Shelly was an integral part of the development of the Arkansas River Watershed Invasive Plants Plan. She chaired the education (and) outreach committee, assisting with the development of the educational www.arkwipp.org Web site and the brochure.
