Table of Contents
SECTION ONE: TECHNICAL SKILLS, WORK MODELS, PREPARATION,
INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

National/State/Local Attention towards watershed health

Corps and Partnerships

Describe Purpose and Concrete Provisions of the Document

Assumptions

Disclaimer
1.
BENEFITS OF USING CORPS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

History and Legacy

Corps and Contractors

Trainings and Member Opportunities

Social Goals

Multiple Outcomes and Funding
2.
COLLABORATION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7

What corps provide
3.
PLANNING AND PREPARATION; CORPS SPECIFIC---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9

Training
4.
PRIVATE LANDS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10

Considerations
5.
SITE SELECTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11

Useful information to Start

Site Visits/ Reconnaissance
6.
TAMARISK AND RUSSIAN OLIVE REMOVAL----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13

Hand removal

Herbicide application methods

Bio-control

Heavy Equipment

Fire

Biomass management

Access
7.
HERBICIDES AND APPLICATION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20

Definitions and Certification

Categories of applicator licenses

Federal Land Management Agencies

Choosing an Herbicide

Approaches to Herbicide Application
8.
REVEGETATION AND RESTORATION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24

Passive vs. Active

Seeding

Planting Willows

Containerized stock

Equipment

Procuring plant materials

Fencing
1
9.
MONITORING METHODS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------29

Line Intercept

Point Intercept

Plot Sampling

Ocular Estimates and Photo Points
10. FUNDING and COST PER ACRE------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30

Recording cost- example of format, suggestions

Description of DRRP funding strategy – how corps fit in

Grant opportunities
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SECTION 2: PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE, KEY COMPONENTS, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
11.
BACKGROUND AND IMPACTS OF TAMARISK AND RUSSIAN OLIVE: EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE-------------------31



12.
Invasion History
References
Effects on the environment
o
Reproductive advantage and resiliency
o
Reduced Plant and Wildlife Diversity
o
Fire
o
Other impacts of Russian olive and tamarisk introduction
OVERALL PARTNERSHIP COLLABORATION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------35



Benefits
Process and Subcommittees
Memorandum of Understanding
13. PARTNERSHIP PREPARATION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------37










14.
SITE SELECTION, WATERSHED APPROACH--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------42



15.
For Example
Who Might be at the Table
NEPA Process
T+E species- Southwest Willow Flycatcher (SWFL)
Working on Private Lands
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
Baseline information
Funding
Monitoring
Baseline Information
Reaches
Other Considerations for Restoration
RESTORATION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------44



Revegetation
Critera
Where to get Plant Materials
2

16.
MONITORING------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------45

17.
Beavers and Restoration
Along the Dolores River
FUNDRAISING STRATEGY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------46

One Example
18. LESSONS LEARNED----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------47
WORKS CITED
3
Introduction
In recent years, a focus towards watershed health on a multitude of levels has gained attention in
the National and International arena. For most of us, the reasons are obvious. It is now accepted that
climate change is happening, weather patterns are shifting, and the future of global water resources is
unknown (citation?). Couple these concerns with a growing human population, stress from water
shortage, water quality issues, storm water and sewage treatment challenges, environmental pollution, and
one can start to foresee the challenges ahead.
The importance of watershed health has caught the eyes of federal, state, and local government,
land management agencies, non-profits, environmentalists, and notably; federal funding and private
foundations. There is a surge of energy towards restoration and reclamation of watersheds, especially in
the arid Western United States. Here, the scarcity of water and the impact from woody invasive species
such as Tamarisk and Russian Olive are widespread. The negative effects for native animal and plant
species, along with humans, are many. The need for a competent workforce to address these effects for
the benefit of the natural world and the health of our riparian corridors is particularly important if we are
to succeed in the battle with invasive species to improve and protect existing resources for future
generations.
In the Conservation Corps world, the prevalence of partnership is a given. Corps partner with
land management agencies, State and National parks, and other non-profits as a matter of course. These
partnerships create the basis for what corps do. The benefits are many: providing a workforce,
completing an important project, creating jobs, teaching skills, impacting lives… The list goes on.
These benefits do not go unnoticed. In the Western United States, many partnerships have been formed
around projects that benefit watershed health. The Dolores River Restoration Partnership, Escalante
River Watershed Partnership, Colorado Headwaters Invasives Partnership, Southeast Utah Tamarisk
Partnership, to name a few… Collaborative partnerships like these bring together agency specialists,
private contractors, environmental organizations, County and state employees, ranchers, citizens, nonprofits, such as the Tamarisk Coalition, Youth/Conservation Corps, private funders, and more. The
purpose of these partnerships is to gather resources, combine forces, share information, learn from each
other, and work together to create a broad, unified effort. “Unity is strength... when there is teamwork
and collaboration, wonderful things can be achieved.” -Mattie Stepanek.
Many of you who hold this resource in your hand have likely been involved in Tamarisk and/or
Russian Olive removal projects for quite some time now. Some of you may have never been involved in
a riparian habitat improvement project before. Regardless of your previous experience, this resource will
be useful in providing the details required to implement or improve upon projects incorporating
conservation/ youth corps, collaboration, the removal of woody invasive species and habitat restoration.
The intent in the creation of this model is:




to take the guess-work out of partnership involvement,
to define opportunities, roles and responsibilities for Corps in this process,
to provide proven methods and resources for training and accomplishing tasks,
and to recognize areas where additional support may be necessary.
4
This document will offer a detailed description about working in partnerships, methods for
tamarisk/Russian olive removal, monitoring, techniques and tips for working in remote locations, project
reporting specifications, define social benefits for members and funders, identify resources for further
research and more.
Assumptions of this Document






Conservation Corps are involved in a collaborative partnership focused on watershed health.
Watershed health can take shape in a multifaceted or single focus.
Restoration activities often have multiple benefits: fire control, fish habitat, improved wildlife
forage, more native vegetation, access for recreation, grazing, endangered species, etc…
Funders are often interested in completing project work and the social benefits associated with
Conservation/Youth Corps.
Project work will work towards a watershed benefit, versus a very local impact only.
Decisions made about where to work and why will be based on pre-determined process.
Disclaimer
This information is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names
does not imply discrimination or endorsement.
Due to constantly changing laws and regulations, as well as differing state laws and regulations, the
author assumes no liability for the suggestions contained herein. The user assumes all such responsibility
in following these and other pest control practices involving pesticides.
__________________________________________________________________________________
1. Benefits of using Corps:
History And Legacy
Most people involved in Conservation or Youth Corps will have some level of familiarity with
the beginnings of what has become known as “The Corps Movement”. The legacy began during the
Great Depression of the 1930’s where 13 million people were out of work. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt responded by creating the Civilian Conservation Corps to revive the economy, create jobs and
invest in natural resources. Most CCC projects included planting trees for re-forestation and erosion
control, constructing state parks, resources for fire-fighting, public service buildings, roadways and
recreation access in remote areas. Through projects, the CCC led to greater awareness and appreciation
of natural resources and the need for future protection and development.
Although the CCC disbanded in 1942 due to conflicting National priorities, the torch continues to
be carried by 151 corps programs operating in 50 states supported by the Corps Network and the Public
Lands Service Coalition, which advocates for corps programs at the National level. Today, a typical
corps program engages youth and young adults ages 14-26 in conservation projects such as recreational
5
management, trail work, fire-fighting/mitigation, invasive species control, and more. These projects take
place on public lands in partnership with organizations such as the BLM, NPS, USFS, State Parks and
more. Many corps programs today are non-profits, county, or university programs with missions
surrounding individual empowerment though hands on service, education and conservation. In the recent
economic climate, current corps programs become as important as the CCC in economic revival through
job creation and training.
Conservation/youth corps have extensive experience training and mobilizing crews of young
adults to a variety of remote and front-country locations for the purpose of completing project work on
public lands. Increasing energy surrounding watershed restoration provides an opportunity for projects
which corps programs are poised to complete. Many corps have experience completing chainsaw
projects, invasive species removal, herbicide application, restoration projects, fencing, and other skill sets
that directly apply to riparian restoration. This factor, coupled with the topics discussed below helps to
make corps programs a natural and obvious partner in watershed restoration.
Corps And Contractors
Corpsmembers earn a living allowance while learning valuable work and life skills. Many
programs select unskilled youth or young adults with the intent of teaching job skills, technical project
work, service ethic, community living, teamwork and communication. Innately, through program
structure, Corps programs place a strong focus on leadership development and environmental
stewardship. Strengths lie not only in project accomplishments, but also in an ability to provide a viable
work force to a region while offering exceptional educational and engaging service opportunities to
participants. Many programs hire locally, focus on disadvantaged populations, minorities, and/or at-risk
youth. Corps programs are also a direct feeder for land management agencies experiencing large
vacancies due to retiring personnel.
Contractors typically recruit experienced labor to increase the speed of project completion. While
skills development and education are often important, they are not always the focus. Contractors are
often for-profit and do not receive grant funding for programs.
For a contractor, finishing the job on schedule is likely the most important consideration, while
for a corps program, this consideration is more balanced with development and empowerment of
participants through service work.
Trainings And Member Opportunities
In balancing development with output, corps often take the time and energy necessary to train
new employees in the skills needed for a particular job. For example, corps restoring habitat on the
Dolores River in Colorado receive a five-day chainsaw training, a day long herbicide application training,
presentations on invasive species, first-aid and CPR class, plus an orientation to the project work. This
helps corps members and leaders add useful skills and experiences to their resumes for future work. In
addition these trainings can facilitate “buy-in” or commitment to a project through clear understanding of
why members are being asked to perform a particular task. Whenever possible, crews are offered
trainings on AVUE digital services/ USAJobs, on how to apply for federal land management positions.
6
Through this experience, exposure to project work, project partners, and by building relationships, many
members “graduate” to a position with a land management agency or move up to a more advanced
position within a corps or other organization. At the National level, the Corps Network strives to
increase connections between land management agencies and corps programs in order to better facilitate
replacement of retiring staff.
Corps engage young adults in many projects that supply direct skills and experience that can
cross over to land management agencies and other organizations. Examples of these are fire-fighting, fire
mitigation, mine reclamation, habitat improvement, stream enhancement, trail building, weatherization,
fencing, road closure, restoration, leadership, communication, teamwork. Often times corps programs
provide certifications and trainings through recognized agencies that help candidates become more
competitive for positions. The program serves as sort of a “revolving door” for certain age groups and
populations to enter unskilled and exit with skills to use in the future. The purpose of these programs is
not to retain members but to constantly be serving the developing youth and young adults of this country
while fostering an ethic that will continue to serve our natural resources and communities in the future.
Social Goals
In addition to formal trainings and certifications, a number of implicit skills are gained through
participation in a corps program. Many of these have been mentioned above; teamwork, work ethic,
education, communication, connection to the natural world, exposure to conservation issues,
environmental stewardship, sense of community, sense of belonging, camping/outdoor skills, increased
health, strength, and self-confidence.
Many Corps programs evaluate their programs through post program evaluations. These are
often aimed at quantifying data for grant reporting and statistics that support mission outcomes.
Multiple Outcomes And Funding
Due to social goals, training and opportunities, coupled with non-profit status, corps programs
can be a benefit to collaborative partnerships by attracting funding that would not otherwise be available
for such projects. Funders often like to see that multiple benefits and far-reaching effects can come from
a project they support. It is in this way that corps programs can tap into funding that supports youth
development, education, programs for at-risk youth, outdoor education and more. These types of funds,
along with the social goals and ability to complete conservation projects create an ideal situation to match
funding in partnerships while highlighting the aspects discussed above.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. Collaboration
What Corps Provide
As touched upon in the introduction, Corps programs collaborate with others on a regular basis to
boost the overall effort, manpower and outcome potential of multi-faceted projects. More and more, as
7
federal budgets are reduced and grant funding becomes scarce, collaboration becomes the way of the
future for non-profits, contractors and land managers alike.
Just as the CCC provided employment opportunities through hiring unskilled workers to
complete conservation projects, current-day corps programs provide a work force on the ground with
multiple benefits. Corps roles in partnerships start with providing this work force and extend to
fundraising, reporting, field support, logistics support and technical expertise. In addition, most corps
programs have:


















Non-Profit status
Connections to other corps in the area
Funder relationships/ ability to leverage additional project money
Ability to tap into a broad range of funding types (multiple objectives, social goals)
Relationships with land management agencies and employees
Project history
Extensive experience training and mobilizing crews
Reputation in the region
Proven track-records and program models
Flexible work schedules
Ability to adapt to changes
Recruitment experience in the local area
Equipment for a variety of project work
Enthusiasm for developing new ideas/partnerships
Hard working and dedicated staff
Existing cooperative agreements (avoiding the bidding process)
Extensive Liability Coverage
Workers Compensation
As a corps representative engaging in a collaborative partnership, it is your duty to make
participants and partners aware of the abilities and resources your program has. These make corps
programs a natural choice for partnering. A suggestion would be to present on your program to the
watershed partnership(s) that you hope to engage with.
Program structure is important to discuss. Most Corps have a Board of Directors which oversee a
Chief Executive Officer and an Executive Director. The ED oversees a Program Director who in turn
supervises other program staff such as Project Coordinators, Recruiters, Logistics Specialists, Field
Supervisors and beyond. The program staff works together to organize projects (with partners),
schedules, trainings, hiring and supervision of crew leaders and members.
In addition to the staffing structure above, corps programs may have specialist positions such as
Youth Program Directors, Education Coordinators, Resource Development Directors and even River
Restoration Directors. Corps programs can also contract specialists for particular services. What this
boils down to is that corps programs can have a lot of available resources and will find time to develop
new ideas and engage in partnerships. Corps programs seek out opportunities to do what they do best;
create jobs, engage youth/young adults, empower individuals through getting conservation work done.
8
An example of a corps program bringing additional support to a partnership is evidenced by the
author’s position with the Southwest Conservation Corps. As the Dolores River Restoration Partnership
began to get its “feet on the ground”, the two conservation/youth corps involved quickly realized that the
scope of the project and the organizational capacity exceeded current staff capability. Utilizing a previous
relationship with a funder, SCC proposed a Corps River Restoration Director (CRRD) position to support
corps within the partnership. This position was funded with the additional purpose of creating resources
for other corps engaging in restoration partnerships. The position has grown in scope since its inception.
The CRRD now represents three corps in the DRRP, participates in three other partnerships with at least
six corps programs, coordinates joint trainings, works with project partners, communicates and
collaborates with multiple members, writes grants and reports, gives public presentations, chairs an
outreach and education sub-committee, is on the “DRRP core team”, is a member of the funding subcommittee, private lands sub-committee and keeps tabs on all aspects of development within the
partnership including implementation plans, funding needs, contractor needs and more. This document is
one of the deliverables of this position which is meant to facilitate more capacity for corps programs in
the future.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Planning and Preparation; Corps Specific
Good planning and preparation starts at the program level. Hiring experienced staff that can be
trusted, reliable and energetic is a nice place to start. From there on, the responsibility of designing a
program specific to watershed restoration necessitates considerable attention. While working in
collaborations is a boon to accomplishing projects, it can also complicate planning and communications.
A useful approach to working in partnerships is to spend as much time as possible becoming
familiar with the project, the area and details surrounding restoration activities. A partnership should
either have or be working towards a science-based plan for restoration that includes many details
discussed in this document. This will be a helpful read before engaging. Ask members of the partnership
to be included in sub-committee or other planning meetings to learn more. Make sure that everyone
involved is clear on roles, responsibilities and expectations. Extend yourself as an energetic partner that
is willing to participate and further the effort. Build relationships with partners and help them to become
familiar with your program and the benefits/resources you can bring. This can only help the process.
Training
Depending on the project scope, the area, and the need for herbicide application or other technical
expertise, a corps program should work to incorporate a training curriculum for the crew(s) that best
prepares them for project work. Suggestions for training topics are:



Equipment, tools, safety maintenance
Introduction to Invasive Species
Impacts from Invasive Species, especially in riparian habitats, the scope of the
problem
9






Orientation to the program
Orientation/Introduction to the collaborative partnership- who, why and how
(purpose, vision, goals, timeline)
S-212 equivalent Chainsaw training (typically 5 days; 2 classroom, 3 hands-on)
Herbicide application training, safety, equipment, clean up, practice
First aid and CPR training
Restoration training- Fencing, caging trees, seeding, willow planting, deep pot
planting (all covered later in this document)
Site Visits are imperative for preparing crews for the project and to ground-truth conditions.
These are discussed further in chapter 5; Site Selection.
As a Conservation Corps representative, it is important to understand some of the processes that
you may not directly be a part of but which will impact where and how the work is done. Please see
Chapter 3 in section two for information on NEPA, Threatened and Endangered Species, Baseline
information, and the National Resources Conservation Service.
If a number of contractors, conservation/youth corps, and individuals are working together on the
same watershed under the same funding, these groups all need to make sure that they are gathering data in
the same fashion for consistency in reporting.
Appendices:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Private Lands
Not all Corps programs have experience working on private lands. Many watershed
partnerships have a scope of work that crosses typical jurisdictional boundaries. The invasive species and
wildlife don’t know the difference, right? So what does this mean? A corps program must have the
ability to create an agreement with a private landowner that is willing to engage a corps program on their
lands. This agreement will most likely explain what the corps will provide, what the landowner will
provide, what activities are prohibited, such as follow-up treatments, and other information.
A landowner may want to see official liability levels or a workers compensation policy before
engaging in project work. They may inquire about safety records, emergency preparedness, the level of
training and request a pre-project site-visit with key staff, similar to a land manager. It is likely they
won’t want the crew using their bathroom, filling up water or camping on site, so these items need to be
discussed up-front. In addition, they may have particular views and preferences that are different than
past project partners a corps has experience with. These views must be respected and project work
modified to meet landowner preference.
In some cases landowners may be willing to have follow-up treatment of invasives, monitoring, or
publicity as a part of their project, and in other cases, they may be avidly against these types of activities.
These too, must be discussed up-front.
10
Often times, a landowner will be happy to interact with a crew on a project, and will be likely to
offer up education surrounding the history of land use in the area or interesting facts about their land.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5. Site Selection
One of the most important initial steps that a watershed partnership has to take is to decide where
to work and why. Site selection is an important component that will stem from (or help inform) overall
goals for a watershed or location and assist in the identification of the most useful implementation type.
This is the point where a partnership identifies how much work there is and what may be done by a
particular workforce. Conservation/Youth corps or other hand crews are often the choice for remote
access or areas where sensitive resources dictate a delicate approach.
Useful Information To Start
As a corps representative it is important to know the information gathered to inform site selection
and to understand that you or your organization may or may not be involved in this process. Often a
partnership will have developed a science based plan for restoration activities within a watershed. This
plan, whether it be called a Community Action Plan, Woody Invasives Control Plan, a Riparian Action
Plan or an Initiative, should outline the current situation, problems, opportunities and an approach. It is
likely that this document will establish goals, a vision and a timeline for the host of activities proposed.
The plan should also detail out recommendations for selection of treatment sites that incorporate
partnership goals. Typically the key components of site selection will be:







Existing native plant community
Floodplain access
Tamarisk/Russian Olive density
Other invasives present (woody or herbaceous)
Physical access
Permission or support from land owner
Compatible land management
Other criteria may be addressed if needed such as:





Endangered species
Cultural/ historical sites
Recreation sites/ access
Wildlife
Priority species
It is important that site selection participants collect baseline information from all available
sources to prepare for this decision making process. As a Corps representative, you may not directly be
involved in the site selection process however you should understand how sites prioritize out for different
types of treatment. This will help your program train crews, justify and explain actions, be a reliable set
11
of eyes on the ground in absence of a project partner, and understand why you may be asked to work in
some areas and leave others alone.
Site Visits/ Reconnaissance
Whenever possible, it will help to do some type of reconnaissance or site visit with project
partners or private landowners to determine the accuracy of mapping and identify details which may
otherwise be overlooked. A good example of why to do this happened to the author on the Dolores River.
Tamarisk infestation size and cover were given on a map, and an area was prioritized based upon this.
However upon visiting the site, it was nearly impossible to access the tamarisk due to an impenetrable
forest of New Mexican Privet surrounding the stand. The polygon on the map showed a light infestation,
but the reality of site access proved the project to be extremely difficult, and not cost-effective (i.e. better
left for the tamarisk beetles). As a Corps representative, you may be asked (and should request) to do
site visits, which is why it is important to understand this process.
This is a great time to get out and kick the dirt; to take what you have learned from the maps and
compare it to what is actually on the ground. When on a site visit look for (and discuss) the following
details:












Accuracy of mapping, infestation size, cover and density
Access to each infestation, and the site in general
Areas for distributing biomass
River crossings if needed
Historical flooding evidence
Hazards to address/mitigate
Potential user groups
Other invasive species
Concerns or specifics surrounding herbicide application
The difficulty of the work/ estimating time needed
Impacts to area- Grazing, Off Highway Vehicle use
Natural boundaries that can inform crew goal setting
Some of the factors that decisions have been made upon may vary considerably in reality. For
example, a noxious weed may have taken over as ground cover in a potential treatment area, where
further removal of tamarisk or Russian olive may increase establishment by opening habitat. Grazing or
Off Highway Vehicle use may have disturbed a previously intact system which, without mitigation,
would not functionally be restored. Access may prove to be difficult compared to assumptions made by
deciphering topographic lines on a map. Land use, ownership and conditions may have changed since
last observed. Tamarisk Leaf beetles may have moved into the area changing an approach decision.
Endangered species, grazing practices, or critical habitat for other wildlife may have been overlooked.
The discussion topics above should stay fresh in the mind of BLM representatives, partners and
Corps personnel working on a restoration project. An extra set of eyes on the ground can be a big help.
An important component to successful projects is constant observation, flexibility and adaptation amongst
changing conditions.
12
Specific site visits will help to confirm/decline a reach or site for prioritization. Visits may also
provide additional information that will aid in choosing the appropriate method for treatment. The
Dolores River Restoration Partnership created a Decision Tree in the development of the Dolores River
Riparian Action Plan (DR-RAP). This tool is a visual guideline for how to prioritize specific sites based
on the vision and goals of this partnership. The DRRP identified factors in prioritization matched with a
scale in importance and plotted these on a simple chart. The Decision Tree offers direction based on
existing factors such as:




species or resources of concern
groundwater present (hydric or mesic, based on existing vegetation)
proximity to other priority sites or seed sources
amount of native vegetation present
However, the Decision Tree does not include all of the details discussed in previous paragraphs.
The Decision Tree is for use once a general reach has been accepted as an important area to treat and
there is need to further prioritize individual, distinct sites within that reach.
It is important to note that each individual partnership may have a different way to prioritize sites
and make decisions based on unique criteria, local conditions, available workforce, species of concern
etc…
Once specific sites have been prioritized within chosen reaches, the next step will be to define
how a site will be treated, by whom, costs associated, and needs. Conservation/Youth Corps may be
identified as a resource at this point. As a Corps representative, this may be where you are brought in to
the project. However, different models for partnerships exist and are changing all of the time. On the
Dolores River, the author participated in the site selection and was able to bring that knowledge back to
participating Corps and crews. The following chapter will define different models and resources for
tamarisk /Russian olive removal that should prove useful for developing or improving a program.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6. Tamarisk and Russian Olive Removal
In past years there have been numerous approaches aimed at the removal of tamarisk and Russian
olive. Through this process a better idea of what works, what doesn’t, and why has started to become
clear. It’s important to note that each land manager, land owner, agency or county may have a preferred
method for treatment. Often these methods have been distilled from previous experiences, divulged by
coworkers, or shared through partnerships. The old saying “more than one way to skin a cat” holds true
for woody invasive treatment as well. Certain methods may favor cost effective materials, others may
favor time necessary, while others might prefer certain workforces. This section will discuss different
treatment methods, the pros and cons, provide resources, and focus in on some specific scenarios that
deserve consideration.
13
Hand Removal
Hand removal is certainly one of the most labor and effort intensive methods for treating tamarisk
and Russian olive. Several different strategies have been used with success.
Digging and Pulling: this approach typically entails cutting and removing the above-ground bio mass,
digging down to the root crown and cutting the remainder of the stump out from below the root crown.
The root crown is the germination point that appears as a large bulbous lump below the ground.
Weed wrenches can be used to pull small diameter individuals out of the ground with decent
success. These are typically steel with vice-like clamps attached to a handle. Users clamp a little fella
and “wrench” the plant out of the ground using an attached fulcrum point. Large steel tripods can be
erected above particularly resilient stumps, chains wrapped around and come-alongs or manual winches
used to pull the stump out of the ground. In areas where access permits, electric, gas, or battery powered
winches can be used.
Pros: No herbicide necessary, great for volunteers, great for wilderness/primitive areas, low noise
pollution, minimal expense in equipment.
Cons: Very time and effort intensive, slow, root crowns may be multiple feet underground due to
sediment build up. Some soil disturbance may.
Non-Mechanized Hand Saws: A variety of hand saws exist for cutting tamarisk and Russian olive. Bow
saws, crosscut saws, Arborist saws such as tri-edge and razor tooth all have their own specific niches.
Axes and loppers can also be used. It is best to evaluate the conditions of a site and become familiar with
different types of saws and their abilities to know what is best to use. It can be helpful to carry solvents
such as diesel, kerosene or citra-solve (the natural option) to help deal with sap and pitch.
Pros: Can use in wilderness, primitive and wilderness study areas, low noise pollution for other
user groups, great for volunteers, minimal expense in equipment, lightweight for remote areas,
good for working around native vegetation, hard to reach areas, minimal soil disturbance.
Cons: Time and effort intensive, can be cost intensive, not good for large, heavy infestations,
herbicide often necessary.
Leaving Standing Dead: Some land managers and private landowners prefer leaving dead standing
woody invasives for wildlife habitat and multi-story canopy. This can be achieved through girdling (often
combined with applying herbicide to the kerf), or by using equipment such as an EZ-ject lance or HypoHatchet (discussed in the next chapter).
Pros: Time efficient, no biomass to remove or stack, provides habitat and structure, no soil
disturbance.
Cons: Standing dead has the potential to act as ladder fuels to larger, native trees such as
cottonwoods, reduced fuel moisture and canopy integrity increases general wildfire potential,
may impede access for recreation, potentially ugly.
14
Chainsaws: Cutting tamarisk and Russian olive with chainsaws is the most efficient hand-removal
method. When used safely and maintained properly by trained individuals, these pieces of equipment can
make fairly quick work of tamarisk. However, tamarisk, Russian olive, and sandy soils can do a number
on saws.
Pros: Efficient for hard to access areas, difficult terrain, sensitive cultural, historic, habitat areas,
and working around existing natives. Low soil disturbance
Cons: Need to deal with biomass, by stacking, chipping, burning, leaving for high flows to
distribute downstream (discussed below). Chainsaw use requires proper safety, technique,
maintenance, and training. There is a high level of noise pollution for user groups. Need to use
in combination with herbicide(s).
Brush-cutters: This tool is like a weed-wacker on steroids. Or a circular saw on a stick. Brush-cutters
have a chainsaw motor, a harness and an arm with a variety of available blade attachments for different
situations. They are best used where young individual plants are prolific and the diameter does not
exceed one inch.
Pros: better than chainsaws for the small stuff that may typically throw a chain.
Cons: fairly expensive, need specific training to operate
Methods For Hand Cutting And Applying Herbicide
Typically, there are two methods for treating tamarisk and Russian olive with chainsaws and
herbicide. These are Cut-Stump and Foliar application. The Cut-Stump method includes chainsawing the
plant and applying herbicide within 15 minutes to the cambium of a level-cut stump. Obviously this can
be done with hand saws as well.
Pros: Cut-stump is mostly a once ‘n done, re-sprouts often occur at 5-15%
Cons: Need for certified applicator or qualified supervisor on site, herbicide application/ safety
training and equipment, and workforce large enough to efficiently cut, swamp (remove biomass),
and spray. Re-sprouts will need to be addressed in following years.
This method can be modified by using a technique called high-stumping. In a situation where
herbicide application is impractical based upon the availability of a certified applicator on site, wind, rain
or temperature issues, a crew can cut the stumps at a comfortable height and return when the weather is
better or the necessary supervision is on site, low-stump and spray the fresh-cut stump.
Pros: Allows flexibility for weather issues, certified applicator or qualified supervisor presence
on site, removes biomass prior to herbicide application, increasing spraying efficiency.
Cons: Need to cut each stem twice. This approach can create logistical challenges if not
scheduled properly from one location to the next. Individual high-stumps may be hard to locate
later.
15
The other way to approach chainsaw and herbicide combinations is to use a foliar or basal bark
spray. Foliar herbicides can be applied to the foliage or to the smooth basal bark of small
individuals/seedlings. Some land managers prefer to have crews low-stump tamarisk or Russian olive
and return the following year to apply foliar herbicide to the re-sprouts. It is recommended that re-sprouts
be allowed to grow up to 3-4 feet before being sprayed with a foliar spray, otherwise the treatment will be
less effective.
Pros: No herbicide application in situ with cutting. Can be a good approach in situations where
cutting crews do not apply herbicide, or where temperature or other conditions do not permit at
the time of the project. Foliar sprays are often more affordable. Foliar herbicides can be applied
to large monocultures by aircraft.
Cons: If individual stumps are not recorded with GPS waypoints or on aerial photos, they may be
difficult to find the following spring. Work crews must return to a site to apply herbicide.
Tamarisk Leaf beetles may defoliate new growth, making the plant appear dead, which could
cause individuals to be overlooked for spraying.
Bio-control
Introduction and migration of the tamarisk leaf beetle (Diorhabda sp.) have recently become
widespread in southwestern watersheds. Although as of 2011, APHIS (Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service- USDA) has halted the release of these beetles in 13 states in response to loss of
endangered Southwest Willow Fly Catcher habitat, existing populations continue to reproduce and spread.
The results can look similar to effects from girdling trees, as tamarisk become repeatedly defoliated by
successive generations of beetles. This often results in dead looking stands, “brown outs”, lack of seed
production and eventually, for some individuals, mortality. For more information see:
http://www.tamariskcoalition.org/BeetleMonitoring.html
Pros: After initial release of beetles, the treatment is essentially free. Some tamarisk die! Beetles
are often the default treatment for remote sites, and heavy infestations where restoration is
impractical. Beetles fly/migrate very efficiently, often finding small, out of the way infestations,
as well as moving throughout river corridors. They cause a reduction in seed source, weakening
of carbohydrate base through continued defoliation. Beetles like young shoots and impede yearly
growth.
Cons: Population dynamics are poorly understood. Effects vary from place to place, year to year.
Mortality rates unpredictable. There is the potential for snowball effects such as impact on bird
populations, vertebrates, invertebrates, habitat, and invasive plants establishing in understory.
Tamarisk can bounce back quickly in absence of beetles and between life-cycles. Reduced fuelmoisture from defoliation greatly increases wildfire potential. Dead standing can persist for many
years and is unsightly.
Note: Goats and Camels have been used as browsers that reduce growth and have been reported to
“obliterate” tamarisk. These are the few, if not only species that will eat tamarisk. Efficiency of these
approaches and availability for use are not well documented.
16
Heavy Equipment
There is a wide variety of heavy equipment that can be used for tamarisk and Russian olive
removal. These range from bobcat sized machines with various attachments, to giant bulldozers. The
two types of approaches are to physically remove the root crown by pulling/raking, or to cut/mulch the
infestation.
To generalize, heavy equipment can be disruptive to the soil, however a variety of attachments
and techniques are available to help mitigate this, such as rubber tracks and long extended arms on
machinery. In addition the experience and technique of the operator can make a large difference in the
severity of soil disturbance. Heavy equipment can significantly reduce cost per acre for treatment,
especially when large contiguous infestations are present- reducing transportation costs.
Pulling and raking attachments typically remove the root crown, necessitating little to no
herbicide use. Depending on the attachment used, cutting and mulching can leave a clean or messy stump
which will dictate the type of follow-up herbicide treatment necessary. A mulched stump from a fecon
mulching head, for example, will require future foliar spraying, where a “feller-buncher” may leave a
clean stump that may be treated in the cut-stump method. Safety considerations for working around
heavy equipment (that can throw material great distances) may make the cut-stump method infeasible due
to longer time between cutting and ability to apply herbicide. Difficulty in proper application to mulched
stumps often results in high re-sprout rates, dictating follow-up foliar spray as the best option.
The Tamarisk Coalition has compiled a number of resources that describe the pros and cons of
various pieces of heavy equipment. (www.tamariskcoalition.org)
Often times it may be necessary for a Corps crew to work in conjunction (before or after) with
heavy equipment and it is important to understand the different types, their limitations, safety
considerations and effectiveness. Typically in areas where heavy equipment can access, a land manager
will define areas (such as river banks, rocky areas, heavy native vegetation) for corps or another hand
crew to tackle. This is essentially the edging, detail work, sensitive areas and sparse infestations. The
larger patches with access for heavy equipment will be treated by a chosen piece of equipment.
Fire
Burning Tamarisk often results in vigorous re-sprouting, however a recent very hot fire was used
as treatment along the Colorado River with mortality of tamarisk reported. Burning may be a treatment
alternative but more research/experimentation is necessary. Fire has a potential to open up previously
occupied habitat to secondary invasive species such as kochia and Russian knapweed. In addition, Busch
(1995) concluded that the invasion of the alien tamarisk coupled with the novel disturbance of fire
completely change southwestern riparian forests, based on his study of burned and unburned riparian
forests along the lower Colorado River in Arizona.
17
Biomass Management
What can be done with the biomass after treatment? A number of organizations are looking into
options for marketable uses of woody material. These include making pellets for stoves, extracting for
furniture, firewood, art. Most of these options depend on making local connections with folks who are
interested in using the material, and while this is a good idea, it often takes a back seat for the need to
complete a project.
Land managers and/or watershed partnerships may have particular preferences for biomass
removal based on local terrain, past experiences, and efficiency. The usual methods for dealing with
biomass are to either chip or mulch, slash pile for wildlife habitat or future burning, disperse on the
landscape, or let the river re-deposit it downstream as driftwood. A brief discussion of each of these will
outline reasons for choosing one over the other.
Chipping and Mulching is often done by heavy equipment working on site. A land manager (or
landowner) may specify that a hand crew working in conjunction with heavy equipment spread slash in an
area where it can be accessed by the equipment. Or a chipper may be brought on site and hand fed. This
is an effective way to reduce biomass, add nutrients, moisture holding capacity to the soil, and cover that
may impede the growth of other invasive species. In high profile areas such as boat ramps and along
roadsides, chipping may be a preferred method for aesthetic reasons. It is useful to note that chips and
mulch can still carry wildfire, as evidenced by the recent fire near Moab, UT that burned historic Dewey
Bridge on Hwy 128. In this instance, land managers had cleared tamarisk from around cottonwoods with
a mulching head on a piece of heavy equipment. The chips unexpectedly carried the human caused fire to
the cottonwoods, causing considerable damage and mortality to these priority species.
Slash piles are a common way to deal with biomass in tamarisk and Russian olive treatment
projects. These piles can provide wildlife habitat for fuzzy bunnies and the like, but are also considered
unsightly, especially when large in number and size. Piles can be difficult to build in proximity to native
vegetation without covering desired species. This also relates to preparing piles for burning in the future.
Piles need to be spaced far enough from each other, other flammable vegetation, priority native
vegetation, and sensitive areas. It is also important that post-burning ashes do not enter the river system.
Pile burning can present challenges for re-growth as fires often scar or sterilize the land, and proper
seeding and nutrient replacement may be necessary. Invasive species often out-compete natives in burn
areas. Pile burning also must be done at the right time of year, is subject to an environmental assessment,
increases the potential for wildfire, and requires a trained and qualified workforce with proper equipment.
In areas with nearby campsites, slash may be bucked up into firewood for users.
Dispersing biomass means spreading it on the landscape. Lop and scatter is the name of the
game. This method is appropriate when large amounts of biomass are not present, stacking is not
feasible, or moving biomass through thick vegetation is prohibitive.
Using the river for help to disperse the biomass is an accepted practice in some locations and not
others. On rivers with high flows, such as the Colorado River, biomass cut in small pieces may be piled
on the banks of the river below the high water line. In the spring, predictable high flows will transport the
biomass downstream, potentially assisting in the armoring and building of sandbars, creating fish habitat,
becoming naturally dispersed and re-deposited. Some land managers may prefer using the slash to help
18
increase the resistance of banks to erosion and enhance the ability to catch sediment in specific locations.
On smaller rivers and tributaries with lower flows, this method may be impractical and if used, could
contribute to the creation of log jams. It is also worth noting that the Army Corps of Engineers prohibits
the alteration or modification of channel course or condition or the creation of obstruction of navigable
waters in the United States. Some project managers require the transportation of biomass out of the
floodplain to protect the system from any negative effects.
Access
Access issues can present a number of challenges for hand crews. In addition to vehicle wear and
tear on rough roads, difficult access can create safety hazards and communication issues for people in the
field. The farther and more difficult the access: the greater the risks and the cost per acre for completing
invasive treatments. It is helpful to briefly outline some of these challenges and recommendations.
A land manager or project partner will often make the decision for what is worthwhile in terms of
access and what is more cost effective to be left alone. In some cases the watershed partnership will have
developed an overall approach that outlines and justifies treatment sites and methods. Many
conservation/youth corps are familiar with the risk management associated with remote projects.
Tamarisk and Russian olive treatment can present a higher level of risk based on the use of chainsaws and
herbicides in remote locations. Simply getting there may be half the battle.
Horse packing can be a good solution for transporting large amounts of equipment and gear into a
remote location for an extended period of time. Most horse packers are used to packing a variety of
equipment in rough terrain. It’s important to check in with the packer to let them know that they may be
carrying herbicides, sharp tools and gasoline. Many packers will have recommendations for what to
bring and how to prepare it for packing. These details are important to understand for efficiency. It is
recommended to know what type and size of panniers a packer uses, how many pounds each horse can
carry and the preferred method for containerizing equipment for packing. Crews should know to
separate equally weighted gear in sets of two as each horse carries two panniers. Labeling and weighing
separate boxes, coolers or pieces of equipment can help the packer distribute weight equally and cut down
on time spent at the trailhead. Considerations for packing space, kitchen and camp item size, and type of
food should be well thought out before meeting the pack train to head into the backcountry. Some tools
and equipment may not be able to be packed in. Horses have also been outfitted with foliar spraying
equipment that can be applied by a rider trailing a pack horse, laden with pressurized herbicide containers.
Hand carrying saws, gasoline and herbicide can be done for projects that can be daily accessed
from a base camp. It is helpful to cache tools, backpack sprayers, and maintenance equipment at the work
site to free up hands for re-supplying gas, herbicide, bringing additional backpack sprayers and other
equipment to the worksite on a daily basis. In 2010, two conservation corps crews working in Little Glen
Canyon on the Dolores River accessed the worksite over the course of a season by a steep, bushwhacking,
descent down the canyons edge, crossing the river up to three times and traveling through boulders and
brush. Their hike ranged from 45 minutes to 2 hours one-way. High flows in the spring necessitated the
use of a whitewater raft for river crossings. In this instance, site visits were imperative. It was necessary
to identify a route down into the canyon, back up access points, areas for low-water crossings, and closest
points for cell phone service. Crews were provided waders, instructed in safe crossing practices,
backcountry travel, flash flood awareness, raft use and safety, and emergency procedures. Safety was the
19
number one consideration. Crew leaders were given extensive first aid kits and Spot communication
devices. All of the crewmembers were trained in first aid and CPR. At least one crew leader on each
crew was a Wilderness First Responder.
Rafts have been used by the National Park Service, BLM agencies, conservation/youth corps and
others for accessing remote river sections for the purpose of completing project work for a number of
years. Recently, many agencies in the Southwest have been purchasing “weed rafts” that can be used in
conjunction with paid or volunteer crews. These rafts are often equipped with multiple dry boxes for
safely transporting equipment and a large tank with a pump and retractable hose for carrying herbicide
and spraying invasive species. In conjunction with other rafts used to transport personnel, saws, and
equipment, a weed- raft can be an efficient method for treatment on remote river sections, especially with
the addition of a motor where allowed.
Flat bottomed metal boats have been recommended for
transporting personnel and equipment on shallow watercourses for similar purposes, however this has not
been a common practice. Flat bottomed boats have the advantages of a low draft (meaning the boat does
not sit deeply in the water) and a stable nature. The key for using boats to access project sites is providing
proper training for those involved, having or hiring qualified guides, and the right equipment. Chainsaws
and other tools can be packaged in dry-boxes or wrapped in tarps and strapped down to a hard floor
inserted in the raft. Herbicide, sprayers, gasoline and oil should all be contained in water tight containers,
such as military ammo cans, so as not to contaminate the water in the event of an accident.
ATVs are another useful way to access remote areas. They can be used along old roads and trails
with permission of a landowner or manager. In 2009, conservation/youth corps crews working with the
BLM used ATVs to transport saws, herbicide and other equipment over 20 miles of closed road along the
Dolores River in a remote canyon section. Crews backpacked their personal gear and food in tandem
with the ATVs, which were operated by BLM staff.
Appendices: Resource List (contractors), Tamarisk Coalition website or documents, Example of Agreement
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Herbicides and Application
Herbicide application is nothing to be taken lightly. Following labeled instructions is the law, and
for good reason. The “Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act” (FIFRA) determines the
minimum standards for the application of pesticides, and states may implement stricter standards, if they
wish. These standards have been developed and are enforced on a federal level by the Environmental
Policy Act (EPA). A state’s Department of Agriculture typically adopts and/or modifies federal standards
for pesticide licensure, testing, continuing education requirements, handling, mixing of pesticides and
supervision of technicians. The Pesticide Applicator’s Act serves as the primary regulation on these
matters. One state’s requirements and stipulations may or may not line up directly with standards at the
federal level and those of other states.
20
Definitions And Certification
Herbicides and Pesticides are often lumped together under the term Pesticide. “A pest means any
living thing that may be harmful to other living things (except man and animals) and includes plants,
insects, bacteria, viruses, fungi, rodents, etc. Microorganisms harmful to people and animals (human and
animal diseases) are not pests under this definition. Pesticide means any substance intended for killing a
pest, repelling a pest, preventing a pest, or otherwise affecting a pest. Herbicides, insecticides, fungicides,
rodenticides, plant growth regulators, etc. are all pesticides.” (www.nmsu.edu)
Pesticides are registered individually with the EPA and are identified as either restricted use, or
non-restricted. Anyone can purchase and use a non-restricted pesticide such as Rounduptm. Restricted
Use Pesticides (RUP) can only be used by a Certified Applicator and are identified as restricted by their
active ingredient(s). The EPA identifies restricted use pesticides. Individual states, through the Pesticide
Applicators Act, the EPA, and the Department of Agriculture, may place more restrictive requirements on
pesticides than the EPA. This ensures that registered pesticides, when used properly according to the
label, can be used with “reasonable certainty of no harm to human health or unreasonable risks to the
environment”.
In order to apply pesticides commercially (for hire), a business must be a “Certified Pesticide
Business” or an individual entity must be a Certified Applicator. This is fairly easy to make happen and
entails applying, paying the yearly (or multiple year) fee and meeting certain standards including liability
levels. Labeling all equipment to state standards, storage and disposal of pesticide, recording and storing
data per specific processes are other requirements that must be met by a Certified Applicator or Business.
The process and standards for application, including the fee and other requirements all vary state to state.
Categories Of Applicator Licenses
In general from state to state, there are similar categories, types of applicators and processes to
follow. Once a business is a Certified Pesticide Business, or Certified Applicator Business (title varies
per state), they can hire or secure the services of a Qualified Supervisor/ Certified Operator (Colorado),
Certified Operator or Technician (New Mexico), Commercial Pesticide Applicator (Utah), Commercial
Applicator (Arizona). All of these titles signify a person that applies pesticides for hire or compensation.
Various stipulations and limitations apply per state.
Other types of applicator licenses include:



Private: a landowner that applies on their property or property they manage,
Non Commercial/Limited Commercial: a person who applies non-commercially, such as
a golf course superintendent, or
Public: a person who applies under a government agency.
Each of these types of licenses may have separate exams that correlate to them.
A person who is licensed to apply herbicide will only be able to apply under the categories they
are licensed in. The different categories require different exams for licensure, the use of various
herbicides and procedures including application rates, methods, and safety standards. These categories
21
include, but are not limited to Agriculture (plant and animal), Forest, Ornamental/Turf, Seed, Aquatic
(surface/sewer root control), Right-of Way, Structure, Wood, Vertebrate, Aerial, Research. Typically,
applicators working in watersheds on tamarisk and Russian olive projects would need to be licensed
under the Forest or Agriculture (non-cropland or rangeland) category. At times it may be possible that
project areas would also require licensure in the Right-of-Way or another category.
Certified Applicators in one state are often able to become certified in other states through a State
Reciprocal Agreement. Again, this varies in state to state and may include fees, records and various
testing.
Federal Land Management Agencies
The BLM and Forest Service compile a list of pesticides that may be used on respective lands. At
a federal level, these agencies identify pesticides that can be used by the agency as a whole. Individual
state agencies then identify what pesticides are appropriate for use within the specific lands managed.
These agencies often adopt standards for application, certification, licensure and safety that are above and
beyond what an individual state’s Department of Agriculture may require. As an example, the BLM
requires that staff using non-restricted pesticides be licensed as Certified Applicators. In addition,
“continued training, periodic examinations, and appropriate certification of personnel are required to
safeguard against misuse, prevent contamination of the environment, and protect public lands.
(www.blm.gov)”
What follows is a description of agency responsibility in regards to pesticide use:
The BLM director formulates noxious weed control policy within the confines of Department of
the Interior policy guidelines. The National Weed Team is responsible for the overall guidance in pest
management programs for the BLM Partners Against Weeds Action Plan, 1996, and Communications
Plan, 1996. Each BLM state director then reviews the pest control programs for his/her area. The BLM
State Weed/Pesticide Coordinator is responsible for compliance with label restrictions where pesticides
are the chosen method.
On lands managed by the Forest service, the Forest Supervisor will:
1. Prepare a noxious weed action plan tied to the Forest Plan, that emphasizes integrated management,
prevention, and includes inventory, treatment, monitoring, and public awareness and participation
programs.
2. Monitor the intensity and extent of noxious weed infestations and provide an estimate on the current
and potential impacts to all resources on National Forest System lands.
The National Park Service (NPS) is required by law to keep the parks as unaltered by human
activities as possible. As early as 1933, the NPS policy recognized the harmful effects of nonnative
plants and animals. Today the NPS has a strong and clear policy on managing nonnative species in the
parks. In addition to national, state, and local laws, parks are currently guided by three primary internal
documents to manage nonnative species including: USDI NPS MANAGEMENT POLICIES (1988),
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GUIDELINE (NPS-77), and the individual parks
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. Many parks also have a specific management plan
which deals with management of nonnative species.
22
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has the primary fiduciary (trust) responsibility on
approximately 56 million acres of Indian owned lands. Although noxious weed management is not
considered a historic trust responsibility, it fits within the realm of protection of the natural resources.
For a description of the objectives and policies of these particular management agencies see:
http://www.weedcenter.org/management/guidelines/Appn3.pdf
Choosing An Herbicide
The best advice for choosing the appropriate herbicide is to consult the experts. Talk to local land
managers, contact other watershed partnerships and visit the websites provided in this document. For the
layman, there are a lot of ins- and -outs involved in pesticide certification and application. Terminology
is one piece of the puzzle to become familiar with. Terms such as growth point, efficacy, mode of action,
inhibitors, growth regulators, active ingredient, inert ingredient toxicity and adjuvant are good to know.
For a better understanding of definitions, processes, planning, training, safety and more, visit the
BLMs’ Pesticide Applicator Handbook at: http://www.pesticides.montana.edu/BLM/GeneralMan.pdf
which is a great resource for training and education.
Common active ingredients in herbicides used for tamarisk treatment in the Southwest are
imazapyr and triclopyr . Some of the brand names for herbicides with these active ingredients are
Arsenaltm, Garlon 4tm, Habitattm, Pathfinder IItm. For Russian olive, glyphosate, with the brand names
Rounduptm or Rodeotm is typically used. Specific information on these herbicides and more are available
on the manufacturer websites. Some examples:




http://www.vegetationmgmt.com,
http://www.dowagro.com,
http://www.cdms.net,
http://www.roundup.com/
The Center for Invasive Plant Management (CIPM) is a great resource for information on
different herbicides, laws, and links to resources across the country. www.weedcenter.org
The Nature Conservancy has put out a Weed Control Methods Handbook that is another resource
including detailed charts, active ingredients, cost comparisons, brand names and behavior in different
substrates: http://www.invasive.org/gist/handbook.html
Approaches To Herbicide Application
One way for a watershed partnership to address the application of Restricted Use herbicides is to
hire a Certified Applicator. Independent contractors carry their own liability insurance, are trained, have
equipment and experience. However, these contractors can be quite pricey, starting around $65 an hour.
If this is the choice, it is good to try to find someone who is familiar with the project area and the group
they may be working with, such as volunteers or a conservation/youth corps crew.
Another method is to use existing partners to support spraying needs. County Weed Managers
may be contacted to collaborate on private land applications. Land management staff may be able to train
a crew and supervise spraying, keeping data on application rates, locations, safety and taking care of all of
23
the herbicide purchasing, mixing. Canyon Country Youth Corps and the Southwest Conservation Corps
used this model with the BLM in 2009 through 2011. It is important to assess the need for staff time with
the project partner (BLM, USFS, NPS) and the watershed partnership. It may be necessary to secure
funding to address this need. The BLM was able to hire a seasonal Certified Applicator to work directly
with these crews in the field, which facilitated efficiency, monitoring, data recording, on the job training
for crews and communication with the agency. This seasonal staff member was able to stay on beyond
the original commitment due to the partnership providing additional funding and by using BLM volunteer
agreements.
Yet another approach for a conservation/youth corps is to become a Certified Applicator Business
in the appropriate state and to have a staff member become a Qualified Supervisor or equivalent. Some
Conservation Corps such as Western Colorado Conservation Corps in Grand Junction, CO, have this
system in place. This allows them to train their own corps members, provide on the job training, and
secure other work related to herbicide application, beyond tamarisk and Russian olive. In addition, it is
possible for corps members to become Certified Applicators after gaining training, experience and taking
the appropriate exams. This approach can also be beneficial as it potentially takes pressure off of a
project partner. However, it does mean that the corps does have to adhere to all standards, store and mix
herbicide and be responsible for the management of these crews and maintenance of equipment.
The best approach may only become evident after thorough examination of options, discussions
with partners and assessment of resources.
Once an approach is determined training and standards for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
should be adopted. A state’s Department of Agriculture and Cooperative Extension Programs, as well as
County Weed Management Districts will all have useful information for this. The best trainings will
combine a classroom section and a hands-on section with the sprayer types and PPE that will be used on
the job.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Revegetation and Restoration
While the removal of tamarisk or Russian olive often seems at first like habitat damage,
restoration work can feel more constructive or healing. Some land managers develop projects with a
phased mosaic approach to both removal and re-planting in order to leave vegetation structure in place for
wildlife and utilize potential benefits that resultant shading and moisture retention may provide to planted
natives. Projects incorporating fencing, planting and seeding can add to the strength and resiliency of an
area when done appropriately and monitored over time.
The manuals “Best Management Practices for Revegetation after Tamarisk Removal in the upper
Colorado river basin (BMP)” and USDA’s “Guide for Planning Riparian Treatments in New Mexico”, are
two great resources to learn from before starting restoration projects and training with conservation/youth
corps crews. Restoration and revegetation projects are inherently complex, and site conditions are rarely
static. Proper planning, preparation and timing, along with material procurement and project
24
methodology are key factors for success. A summary of these processes summarized from the above
manuals are discussed below.
Passive Vs. Active
Revegetation typically falls under two categories: Passive and Active. A decision to use passive
revegetation should indicate the presence of enough native and desirable species that should be able to
spread and become resilient on their own after invasive treatment. It is also important that there is the
presence or influx of enough water, coupled with the appropriate soil conditions (check salinity levels!) to
foster native enhancement. Suggested starting cover composition of natives for passive revegetation are
10% native in wetter areas, and 25% native in more dry or upland areas.
Active revegetation has to do with the act of physically planting and/or seeding desired species at
a site. In general this is a good approach where sufficient native or existing other vegetation is not
adequate for passive revegetation, or other challenges for natural revegetation exist. Again, this approach
will likely be the decision of a land manager, property owner or watershed partnership. This decision
must take into account available water, soil conditions, species that are site and condition appropriate,
land use, wildlife habitat, riparian conditions and more. The two manuals mentioned above are great
resources to learn more about all aspects of revegetation from planning to implementation and
monitoring.
Project success should be important to anyone involved in ecological restoration. Failed
restoration and replanting activities are often due to a lack of assessing site conditions, choosing
appropriate species for existing conditions and improper technique. As a conservation/youth corps, it is
just as important to train members in techniques for restoration as it is to make sure they can safely wield
chainsaws.
Seeding
Direct seeding is often a good way to establish cover and diversity on a site with relatively low
effort and cost. However, for seeding to be effective, it may be necessary to prepare the seedbed. If
herbaceous weeds are present, it is advisable to burn or apply herbicide to control these before seeding.
This can slow project progress as herbicides need time to decompose in the soil before seeding should
take place. Fire may have negative effects such as soil sterilization, necessitating fertilization or other
remediation. In sites where there is little to no native vegetation present after tamarisk or Russian olive
treatment, it may also be advisable to contour or imprint the soils for a number of reasons. This process
can be completed by hand distribution and raking for small projects or by machines towing a land
imprinter or disks and seeding equipment used in agricultural or landscaping practices. Imprinting soils
can create micro-habitats, catch moisture, and dilute or distribute salinity. Regardless of how a site is
prepared and how seeds are dispersed, it is important to be cognizant of depth control to ensure success.
The appropriate planting depth varies for different species and some may simply be broadcast. Whether
or not a mulch layer will be applied, or is already present at a site, is an important part of the equation.
Mulch can help to contain and store available moisture, decrease the establishment of undesirable species,
but can also carry ground fires as well.
25
The NRCS suggests that successful seeding in the Southwest without supplementary watering
requires at least 3-4 consecutive precipitation events separated by four to seven days.
Monthly
precipitation should maintain seedlings beyond this. Keeping this in mind, the time of year for seeding is
important and planning around monsoonal rains can improve success.
Planting Willows
Willows are a great stock material for revegetation. They are common, can grow rapidly under
the right conditions, can often be harvested on site or nearby, provide new habitat quickly, and reduce
erosion. In addition, once established, they are supple, allowing resilience in areas with high flow
regimes and dynamic channel morphology. They bounce back quickly from browsing and harvesting.
Willow cuttings, or whips, are best planted during the dormant season (winter to early spring)
before budbreak. Harvesting poles is simple with the right attention to detail and planting is also easy.
Whips will sprout roots from adventitious buds and sprout from lateral buds along the stem after
contacting water. Many willows will appear bushy because of this reaction from browsing by beavers.
The key to successfully planting willows is to select healthy individuals, plant them immediately or soak
between harvesting and planting. The cutting must make contact with the capillary fringe- the area above
a water table consisting of mixed oxygen and water. This can be ensured by driving rebar into the ground
in an area with relatively shallow water tables, using an electric hammer drill, an auger, pick or similar
tool. As long as the tool comes out of the pilot-hole wet, you can be sure you have contacted the capillary
fringe. Soil around the whip should be tamped or a slurry of soil and water added to ensure proper soilto-stem contact. It is important to note that willow planting will be less successful in areas with large
fluctuations in water table depth. Consider this factor in planning and timing of projects.
Cottonwood poles and those of other riparian species may also be planted in a similar fashion.
This is called deep pole planting and often necessitates the use of some specialized equipment, depending
on the depth to capillary fringe/water table. Large “stingers” (basically long pokers) attached to heavy
machinery, gas powered augers, waterjet stingers (which use high pressure water to bore into the soil) and
other equipment can assist this process. It is worth noting that large caliper poles can be susceptible to
breakage under flood conditions.
Containerized Stock
Containerized stock can be purchased in different forms. Planting containerized stock with long
root balls during the fall is advantageous because this provides time for root development prior to spring
runoff, especially in situations where scouring is severe. Some riparian species in small containers but
with long stems can be buried in deep planting holes for anchorage and to contact the water table. A
recommendation of a 3:1, root-to-shoot ratio is recommended for deep planting
Producing containerized stock requires prolonged irrigation, however deep containers have the
advantage to exploit deeper soil moisture sooner after planting. Production costs are higher (installation,
materials, irrigation), and lead-time necessary before a project may be up to three years.
To achieve a diverse native plant community, growers of native plant materials will have to be
identified and contracts approved to produce the plant materials required for a large restoration project.
26
When planning revegetation projects, one needs to consider the costs versus benefits of different stock
sizes. The principal considerations of purchasing large stock are the high initial plant material and
installation costs versus lower maintenance (i.e., irrigation) costs and higher survival rates.
Useful Links:
http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/pmc/factsheets/tall-pot.pdf
http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/news/publications/polecutting.pdf
http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/news/publications/deep-planting.pdf
http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/news/publications/riparian.pdf
Equipment






Seeders- garden, hand, heavy equipment, Four Wheeler attachments, many shapes and sizes
Rotary Hammer Drill: http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/pmc/releases/0914.pdf
Small Generator- with ground-fault circuit (to protect from shock)
Stinger: http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmctn8088.pdf
Waterjet stinger: http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/idpmcarwproj17.pdf
Auger: handheld or heavy equipment attachment
Procuring Plant Materials
It may be useful to start by gathering a list of plants that exist in the local area and to start to look
early for a plant nursery or source that may be able to provide local stock. Stock from other locations
may have genetic differences that select for specific climates, rendering them less successful at your
project site. Native stock that is selected as close to a project site as feasible will often be the best,
however the timing, storage and preparation of materials must be adhered to. Often times, populations of
willows and cottonwoods may be procured close by and will continue to grow after whips are gathered. It
is important to only harvest 1/4 to 1/3 of the available plant materials on a site in order to keep those
species healthy.
Native seed may be gathered at the correct time of year and either directly planted or stored for
long periods of time if done correctly. A cave bean found in a clay pot was successfully germinated after
1500 years! Many organizations are working to collect heirloom varieties of native plants and can
recommend techniques for collection and storage.
An example is native seeds/SEARCH,
www.nativeseeds.org/
The NRCS has 27 native plant materials centers thorough out the country for the purpose of
growing out native species for restoration projects. http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/
Protecting Cottonwoods
Unlike some tree species (oaks, tamarisk), cottonwoods are susceptible to mortality from fire.
Creating firebreaks by treating tamarisk and Russian olive to make a 30 foot diameter buffer around
priority species can make the difference between life and death. However, as noted earlier, mulch and
grasses may still carry fire. The hope is that removing the ladder fuels (the ones that help fire climb to the
crown of a tree) will cause a ground fire to burn without climbing the tree and/or killing it.
27
It is a common belief that treating tamarisk and Russian olive may open up cottonwoods and
other important natives to increased predation by beavers, cattle and other ungulates. Beaver are often
present in riparian systems and can provide many important functions through damming streams. They
are considered pests by some due to flooding resulting from dam failure, clogging of culverts and felling
of trees. Cottonwood predation by beavers and other species is likely more of a concern where numbers
are sparse, such as many southwest rivers, and where recruitment is slowed, often due to water
management practices.
Many project partners choose to cage cottonwoods to protect them. A variety of techniques have
been used. The basic premise is to wrap wire fence around a cottonwood trunk which will not allow
beavers to get through and chew. There are many types of wire type, thickness and patterns to choose
from. A thicker gauge steel mesh with holes smaller than 2”x4” is recommended. Wire must reach 3-4
feet high and be attached to the ground with stakes, rebar, or T-posts so that beavers cannot sneak under
for a bite. One foot is a good distance from the trunk to space the fence, all the way around, to allow
growth for many years. Hog rings or wire may be used to connect the two ends together. It is important
to make note or GPS each tree that is caged as maintenance is often needed to remove flood debris, adjust
spacing or remove fencing. If fencing is left in place forever, the tree may eventually grow large enough
to incorporate the fence, effectively girdling the tree. Keep in mind user groups and potential hazards that
can be mitigated. An example of a hazard would be placing T-posts below a high water line of a
navigable river that may pop rafts or harm swimmers.
Some projects have incorporated sand and paint to deter beavers from gnawing at trunks. This
method, while somewhat cheaper than caging, can be time and material intensive and may need to be
maintained or repainted often. A variety of success rates seems to lead some land managers to feel that
caging, while somewhat costly, is a better option.
For more info:
http://www.beaversww.org/Protect%20Trees.html
http://www.landscouncil.org/documents/Beaver_Project/WDFWbeaversFacts.pdf
www.beaversolutions.com/tree_protection.asp
Fencing
In riparian areas where restoration activities have occurred, fencing may help to protect fledgling
plants to gain a foothold without being weakened by browsing. Often fencing an area for 1-3 years may
be enough for plants to become established. Understanding cattle grazing rest and rotation schedules,
Animal Month Units, working with Land Management range staff and allotment leases is recommended
before undertaking a restoration project. Often times, if dormant season cattle grazing is happening, it
can be compatible with restoration. You will need to know if issues with Elk, deer and other ungulates
are expected and take measures to minimize browsing.
There are tons of different types of fence and ways to install these. A good website to learn about
wildlife friendly fence is: http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=34461 which includes a section titled “if
you must exclude”. This section discusses ways to exclude wildlife while limiting potential snares and
harm.
28
Often a project partner will have specific desires for type of fence, materials and equipment
needed. A quick internet search will provide many “how to” guides for a variety of fence types.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Monitoring Methods:
No restoration project is finished until it is successful. Without monitoring, there is no
measurement of success, no continued learning and no addressing of follow up needs. As a corps
program with crews engaging in both invasive species treatment and restoration projects, there is an
opportunity to become involved with monitoring. What follows is a brief discussion of some common
monitoring methods used in riparian areas to address vegetation response.
Line Intercept
Used for observing plant cover, this method of sampling entails stretching a measuring tape of a
pre-determined length on the ground. Percent cover is sampled by recording the length of intercept for
each plant species measured along the tape by recording the point on the tape where each plant canopy
begins and ends. When intercept lengths are summed and divided by the total tape length, the result is a
percent cover for each species measured.
Point Intercept
This method is particularly useful for measuring vegetation change over time. A baseline transect
is lain out and other transects are run perpendicular at random intervals along the baseline.
Characteristics about the general transect length and number design should be recorded. Sampling is
taken at pre-determined measurements along each transect. Cover is determined by dividing the number
of “hits” of a specific species by the total number of sample points.
Plot Sampling
This method entails sampling plots within a study area to help determine cover. There is a need
to decide whether to randomly or systematically place plots. A plot (or quadrat) is typically one meter
square in size and can be assisted visually by constructing a frame with one removable side for fitting
around tall vegetation. Once plots are placed in the manner decided, plants within each plot can be
counted and cover within the plot estimated. This data will be recorded on a standardized form. This will
help to make generalizations about the study area.
http://ei.cornell.edu/teacher/pdf/IE/Exam_Protocol2.pdf
29
Monitoring can take many shapes and forms. The method used will likely be pre-determined by
the partnership or land management agency that a corps program may be working with. It is probable that
if the corps program has been identified for monitoring that the protocol will be clearly explained and
hands-on practice will be facilitated.
Ocular Estimates And Photo Points
In addition to the monitoring methods mentioned above are simple tools that almost anyone can
use. Ocular estimates, based upon density or canopy cover estimate guides can help give a description of
vegetation cover, native or invasive. Photo points document pictures at particular “monumented” sites,
the direction of the photo, time of year and other notes such as “before treatment”. These photos can be
taken year after year and compared to simply gauge what may be happening at a site. GPS units can help
different people return to the same point if they are not familiar with a site.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Funding and Cost Per Acre:
As watershed restoration groups continue to increase in number and scope in the southwest,
momentum, attention, and new funding sources are also on the rise. A comprehensive strategy within a
partnership or coalition for bringing in funding, coupled with appropriate planning timelines will certainly
benefit. For an example of a strategy, see Chapter 17.
Sources
In terms of funding sources for restoration related projects, a number of organizations have
compiled useful lists and have outreach mechanisms for up-coming grants. Land management agencies
and other partners often contribute funding and keep tabs on new and existing sources as well.
Organizations such as the Colorado Watershed Assembly (Inflow Newsletter) and the Tamarisk Coalition
have compiled lists of potential funders that are available online. In addition, the Tamarisk Coalition (as
of 2012) has hired a funding coordinator to work with a variety of partnerships to identify needs and
applicable funding sources. These will be good places to start:
http://tamariskcoalition.org/FundingResources.html
www.coloradowater.org
Cost Per Acre
Capturing cost per acre for woody invasive removal/treatment has proven to be an interesting
process. During 2010-11, an initial effort to quantify cost per acre was implemented. The effort began
with an inventory of various labor sources, approaches (mechanical, hand, heavy equipment) and factors
that impact costs. In general, costs ranged all over the board with little consistency amongst similar
approaches. A variety of factors seem to have significant impacts on cost per acre as well. These factors
30
include density of infestation, access, remoteness, method of treatment, experience of crew or operator
and more.
The inventory incorporated development of a preliminary cost reporting form that detailed out
factors mentioned above in order to capture the variety of nuances which can affect efficiencies on
projects. This form was given a trial run with agencies, contractors, corps programs etc… Through this
process it became clear that further research and development were necessary to come up with a more
user friendly and clear format, which is in process (as of summer 2012). The Tamarisk Coalition is taking
the lead on further development.
What has been clear from the initial study, and may be obvious, is that removal with heavy
equipment is often more cost effective than removal by hand crews (refer to chapter 6 for pro and cons).
Each approach seems to have their place, as determined by access and treatment outcomes.
Through the process of looking closely of cost per acre, attention has been given towards
improving efficiencies, especially for large scale, multi-year projects. Much of the information regarding
approaches, work models and resources contained within this document will be beneficial for planning,
training and implementing projects. The outcome should be more efficiency in project work.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
SECTION 2:
PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE, KEY COMPONENTS, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
______________________________________________________________________________
11. Background and Educational Resource
Invasion History
The invasion of tamarisk and Russian olive on the North American landscape began in the mid to
late 1800’s when these species were introduced from the Middle East and Western Asia as ornamental
shade plants, for wind breaks, and erosion stabilizer species. It turns out that these plants were very good
at what they did. “By 1850, saltcedar had escaped … and infested many river systems and drainages in
the Southwest – often displacing native vegetation. By 1900 it was being used to control erosion on the
banks of the Colorado River and Rio Grande” (Barranco).
During the mid-1900’s, saltcedar (tamarisk) had spread through the country from Florida to
California and could be found as far north as Idaho (Grubb).
Tamarisk and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.) had been planted extensively in the Great
Plains during the Great Depression in association with government programs aimed at soil stabilization.
Ironically, the Civilian Conservation Corps, from which many current-day Corps programs are modeled,
were heavily involved in these planting efforts during Roosevelt’s New Deal. This aided the efficient
spread of these species throughout the Gila, Salt, Pecos, Colorado, San Juan, Rio Grande, and countless
31
other Western watercourses. In addition, the construction of dams and flood control structures throughout
the West altered flood regimes and created ideal situations for the further establishment of tamarisk and
Russian olive. “By 1961, at least 1,400 square miles of floodplain in the western United States were
infested by saltcedar” (Barranco). Saltcedar and Russian olive continued their spread to inhabit desert
riparian habitats throughout the 1970’s and 80’s. Today, saltcedar has infested nearly every drainage in
the Southwest. Currently occupying over 1 million acres, saltcedar has spread to most habitats west of
the Great Plains, north into Montana and south into Mexico. Russian olive is present in all Western states
and the majority of the United States. “As recently as the 1980s and 1990s, some state and federal
agencies continued to subsidize distribution of Russian-olive seedlings in the U.S. and Canada” (Katz,
Shafroth, 96,137).
Effects On The Environment
Reproductive Advantage And Resiliency
Tamarisk plants have been found to produce as many as 600,000 seeds per year and can flower
during the first year of life. Seeds are lightweight and spread easily by wind and water. Severed portions
of the plant can easily take root in moist areas, which is important to consider in biomass disposal during
removal projects. Saltcedar can also survive immersion for over two months! Vegetative re-sprouting
will often occur after fire, floods and herbicide application. In addition, this species has adapted to a
variety of soil types, is salt tolerant and has a deep tap-root that allows it to fill niches that typical riparian
vegetation cannot. If all of this is not enough to convince you that tamarisk is good at what it does, there
is more. Tamarisk takes up salts through its deep root system and deposits it on the ground through
regular loss of foliage. This gives the plant yet another edge over natives as it slowly but effectively
increases surface salinity levels in the local area, pushing out native species that cannot cope. It also
tends to grow in dense monocultures, physically shading out native competitors.
Not unlike tamarisk, Russian olive has a high seed production and viability, will vegetatively
reproduce in response to injury, is drought, alkaline, and salt tolerant and will establish without the need
for disturbance, partially due to seed dispersal by birds and mammals. This species also has a deep taproot, is adapted to a variety of soil types, and is shade tolerant, allowing it to establish under existing
natives. It too will replace native species, especially when riparian conditions have been altered due to
flood control and river impoundment. Flow alterations often increase salinity due to lack of flooding and
dilution of surface salts, and leave a decreased water table: conditions which favor the plants under
discussion. Russian Olive is a nitrogen fixer and may also add large amounts of nitrogen to systems
where it is present. However, “no studies have yet demonstrated this in invaded communities” (Katz,
Shafroth, 96).
Reduced Plant And Wildlife Diversity
32
“It has been found that saltcedar stands supported only four species per hundred acres, in
comparison to 154 species per hundred acres of native vegetation. Saltcedar communities tend to have
smaller numbers of insects as well.” (Barranco). While Russian olive is a source for edible fruit for birds
and mammals, it has been found that avian species richness is actually increased in areas with higher
concentrations of native vegetation.
Fire
Tamarisk infestations rapidly deposit lightweight and flammable litter and can burn as often as
every 16-20 years. The ability of this species to vegetatively reproduce after fire gives it an advantage
over native species, which often experience mortality or slow regeneration after wild or prescribed burns.
Fire doesn’t kill tamarisk, it just makes it mad! With the recent introduction and rapid spread of the
tamarisk leaf beetle, Diorhabda Sp., many communities are experiencing repeated defoliations resulting
in reduced fuel moisture which may increase the potential for wildfire ignition and spread.
With Russian olive’s ability to sprout following top-kill, and more persistent seed bank, it may be
better adapted to persist in an environment of frequent fires than native riparian trees.
It has been noted that “The structure of stands supporting nonnative invasive species may carry
fire better than that of native vegetation. Saltcedar and Russian-olive can contribute to increased vertical
canopy density, creating volatile fuel ladders, thereby increasing the likelihood and impacts of wildfire”
(Stuever, et al.).
In general, flood suppression and water stress in Southwestern riparian areas, coupled with the
presence of invasive species, increases the possibility for fire. The additional effects on native species
from flood suppression, such as an increase in fuel loads and a decrease in the regeneration of native trees
adds to the ability for out-competition by invasives and the associated changes in ecosystem composition
that are more susceptible to wildfire [60,61]. “Fires have replaced floods as the primary disturbance
factor in many southwestern riparian ecosystems” (Ellis, 159-170).
Other Impacts Of Russian Olive And Tamarisk Introduction
Alongside the demonstrated resiliency of and impacts from the introduction of the species
mentioned above are a host of associated changes to riparian ecosystems, for recreation users and more.
Tamarisk and Russian olive were originally introduced for erosion control and stream bank stabilization,
and one can imagine that they are quite effective in these roles. One result of this is the channelization of
river corridors. These species tend to crowd banks, side channels and abandoned meanders, reducing the
occurrence of braided channels and the variety of geomorphologic features often associated with rivers
and streams. Channelization results from the presence and number of deeply rooted plants in and
surrounding the channel. This reduces the movement of soils and sands, the natural tendency of rivers to
meander from established routes, catches sediment, debris and materials that raise bank height and fill in
side channels. Impacts from this include crowding or choking of irrigation canals, marshlands and river
corridors for river runners, reduction in habitat for aquatic species including fish nesting/spawning areas,
33
changes in the general ecology of an area. Other results of infestation include a change in flood character
and impacts due to a steepened, straightened gradient, a reduction in the ability for wildlife, range animals
and recreational users to access a watercourse.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
12. Overall Partnership Collaboration:
In response to the impacts discussed above, isolated groups have been treating tamarisk and
Russian olive stands in particular areas (usually of high use or visibility) for quite some time. This often
led to a patchwork of results, improving small areas, learning what works and what doesn’t. The scope of
the issue and the resources necessary has led, in recent years, to a heightened awareness and need for a
collaborated effort to generate a wider range of productivity and benefits. This section is intended to
inform readers about the benefits and challenges of partnership collaboration. It is important to
understand these components and to have a sense of the basic framework of existing partnerships before
entering one in your area.
Benefits
As mentioned in the introduction, and obvious to many people, are the benefits gained through
collaboration. Working together towards a common goal increases the sense of camaraderie and the host
of resources available surrounding a project. This is particularly important in the realm of riparian
restoration due to the variety of issues, user groups, land managers and private in-holdings. For example,
one might be focused on a river area that is a BLM managed Wilderness Study Area, next to a large cattle
ranch that leases portions of the BLM lands along a river that is dam controlled, contains endangered fish
species, irrigates crop lands, is a destination for OHV users, is crowded with river runners at certain times
of the year and is heavily impacted by invasive species. One can imagine the complexities of such a
situation and understand how collaboration would be necessary for decision making focused upon
improving riparian health.
Many of the partnerships that have been created in recent years aim to find the best solution for a
section of river based on the input and cooperation of land managers, private owners and user groups.
Additional benefits are gained by the participation of non-profits, regional experts, private contractors,
irrigation companies, local businesses, and concerned citizens.
In addition, the act of collaboration can attract grant funders and increase the scope of positive
outcomes for a restoration project. Many funders are interested in organizations that work in partnership
with others. They often like to see that there will be a host of results from their giving, and that many
points of view have been considered before decisions have been made.
34
Opportunities for community outreach and education increase with collaboration as well. Simply
opening partnership involvement to the general public helps to achieve this. An increase in membership
equals an increase in man-power, time, and resources that can be devoted to ideas like public
presentations, signage, writing articles, creating brochures, hosting events and implementing volunteer
projects. These types of ideas can help to bring in even more resources, spread the knowledge of what is
being done and why, to add another layer of outcomes to your project and strengthen reporting to funders.
Process And Subcommittees
Now, all of this doesn’t just happen when a group of people sit down together. There needs to be
a structure that can include a facilitator, a vision, project goals, identified needs and people willing to
address these needs. This is a fairly standard structure that will be familiar to anyone who has ever served
on a board of some type. Ideally there is funding in place or anticipated seed money. It is helpful to
create sub-committees within the partnership that focus on particular areas and report back to the main
group.
Examples of subcommittees:








Outreach and Education,
Funding,
Science committee
Grazing Management
Projects
Monitoring,
Private lands,
Implementation
This alleviates the need for the whole group to discuss every minute detail and separates tasks
in to more bite-sized pieces. These pieces can more effectively be addressed through a sub-committee
which develops a strategy, goals and action items along a timeline, reporting back to the larger
partnership on a regular basis.
Memorandum Of Understanding
Somewhere in this process (ideally at the beginning) it is important to identify the exact purpose
of the group, to agree upon duties and the decision making process, as well as to make clear what roles
are not appropriate for the group or particular members to make. This is best done through the formation
of a Memorandum of Understanding or an MOU. This document can guide a group in the future, exudes
a level of professionalism, solidifies organizational agreement and adds to the clout of a partnership.
Even before an MOU is formed, it is helpful to identify roles and decision making, as the creation of an
MOU does not happen overnight and may include necessary reviews, even by a lawyer.
Although the ideas of collaboration, partnership and common goals are often warm and fuzzy, the
realities can be trying at times. Everyone doesn’t always agree. Personality differences and paradigms
can get in the way of successful communication. Ulterior motives can be involved. Roles can be
assumed. Ego can take precedence. Participation can falter. Details can be overlooked. The point here
35
is that as a part of any group, it is of paramount importance to remain flexible, patient, open, and willing
to see other points of view. At the most basic level, people have to be willing to work together and to
understand that the ultimate goal is what is most important and worth the effort.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
13. Partnership Structure and Preparation:
For Example
Ok, so let’s imagine that a restoration partnership has come together and is working on the MOU,
there is funding allocated for planning and demonstration projects, and the agreed focus (or one of them)
is watershed health regarding native species re-establishment after tamarisk and Russian olive removal.
You represent one of the local (or the closest) Conservation/Youth Corps in the region and are involved
because your organization can provide a workforce, you have a proven track-record, can work in remote
locations, are flexible and can even apply for future funding. In addition, current funders are interested in
the fact that you can hire local people, give them training, teach work ethic and provide future employees
for land management agencies.
Zee River Restoration Partnership is coordinated by a host organization such as The Nature
Conservancy or Zee River Keeper Group that has ideally been involved in issues surrounding the Zee for
a number of years. The two BLM offices that manage land on the Zee River are represented by the
Invasive Species Coordinators from those offices. A rancher who owns a large piece of land on Zee river
is present. There is a National Park Ranger present from Zee National Park which is just downstream
from the BLM lands. Two owners of Zee rafting company are there. Representatives from the local
NRCS and Partners for Fish and Wildlife are present to see how private landowners along the river may
benefit from the project. Members of the Tamarisk Coalition and other consultants are in the room.
The host organization or another partner has secured funding for planning. The BLM agencies
are assessing their NEPA processes to ensure that the proposed project types will be acceptable under the
Environmental Assessment. They are willing to apply for funding for the next year, assuming all goes
well with NEPA (see below). The BLM also has a crew that may be able to do Zee monitoring for the
first year. The rancher is interested in having work done on his land because he is sick of the tamarisk
infesting his fields, making it hard for his cattle to get to Zee water. He is willing to match funds with a
grant for next year and has begun dialogue with his local NRCS (see below) representative. The
National Park ranger has been working on cutting and treating Zee tamarisk and Russian olive with
volunteers in the park for the last five years. He believes he can get the support of the park GIS specialist
for some of the monitoring data. The owners of Zee rafting company want to see how they can become
involved. The Tamarisk Coalition has mapped out the Tamarisk and Russian Olive infestations on Zee
river in years past and continue to monitor the tamarisk leaf beetle on Zee river. They have provided the
group with maps showing the locations and levels of Zee infestations and have made recommendations
for priority removal areas. These folks have also been involved in the Wee River Restoration Partnership
36
and have some suggestions for how to monitor the results and store the data. Everything is moving
forward.
Who Might Be At The Table
As a partnership progresses, it is natural to engage groups and individuals beyond the original
participants. Some other natural partners might be:














Town Managers
County Weed Managers, County Commissioners
Department of Tourism,
Scenic Byways, State Division Of Transportation
Recreation Managers
Environmental Organizations
Division of Wildlife
US Fish and Wildlife
US Forest Service
State Parks
Irrigation Companies
Mining Companies
Wetland or Conservation Focus Area Committees
Conservation Districts
What follows is a description of the National Environmental Policy Act, considerations
surrounding Threatened and Endangered Species, a brief description of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Working on Private Lands, Baseline Info, Funding and Monitoring Planning.
NEPA Process
“The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to integrate
environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of
their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions.
To meet NEPA requirements federal agencies may be required to prepare a detailed statement
known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). EPA reviews and comments on EISs prepared by
other federal agencies, maintains a national filing system for all EISs, and assures that its own actions
comply with NEPA”(epa.gov).
Certain types of activities may fall under what are called “Categorical Exclusions” which meet
criteria that agencies have previously determined have no significant environmental impact. For projects
smaller in scale and impact, an agency may file for an Environmental Assessment (EA) versus an EIS.
37
An Environmental Assessment is appropriate when there is a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for
the activities taking place. If there is a finding of significant impact(s), this is when the EIS is required.
Agencies may also file Programmatic EA such as a Weed EA for invasive species treatments. This
overarches the invasive species program for the activities that are typically carried out under that
program. Specific resource specialists such as Archeologists, Ecologists, Range Managers, Invasive
Species Coordinators, or Hydrologists may be involved in the preparation and analysis of an EA
depending on the identified issues and concerns. Each of these experts must sign off on the impacts they
understand will take place and either accept or decline these actions. They often must visit the potential
work site to assess conditions and realistically predict impacts… One can see how long this process may
take.
Once an EA is complete, a determination of no significant impact would allow implementation of
the project whereas, if it is determined that there will be significant impact, an EIS would need to be
completed.
“Once received by EPA, each EIS is stamped with an official filing date and checked for
completeness… Agencies often publish (either in their EISs or individual notices to the public) a date by
which all comments on an EIS are to be received”(epa.gov). This will usually be 45 days from the date
the EIS is received. If an EIS is determined incomplete, it may be sent back to the filing agency for an
extension. This process can happen more than once.
T+E Species- Southwest Willow Flycatcher (SWFL)
One of the reviewers of the EIS and EA’s might be a Threatened and Endangered (T+E) specialist
that is familiar with habitats and identifying those species that may be in the project area or have habitat
impacted by project activities.
In Tamarisk and Russian olive treatment in the Southwest there are a couple of species of concern
that one should know about (specific locations may have more). These are the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and
the Southwest Willow Flycatcher. The Yellow billed Cuckoo is listed as a candidate for listing under the
Endangered Species Act (http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2010/r8/B06R_V01.pdf).
Riparian areas provide suitable habitat for these species, which have, in some cases, adapted to the
ecosystems impacted by woody invasives. In particular, the Southwest Willow Flycatcher (SWFL) is a
species of concern because it has adapted to nesting in Tamarisk from its natural (you guessed it) willow
habitat. This species is endangered and has also been impacted by the tamarisk leaf beetle. The beetles
defoliate tamarisk where SWFL may have nests. This changes the temperature in the nest and impacts
egg and fledgling survival rates. So here we have serious concerns for an endangered species that has
modified its habitat to an invasive species (tamarisk) impacted by an introduced bio-control agent (the
beetles). In June 2010 the U.S.D.A halted the release of the tamarisk leaf beetle and cancelled existing
permits, although this hasn’t stopped the progress of these bugs. This issue has been the subject of many
recent debates. More information can be found on this topic online.
See: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/news/workshopSep96/marshall.html
http://sbsc.wr.usgs.gov/cprs/research/projects/swwf/Reports/Sogge_et_al_Saltcedar_and_SW
WF_proceedings_with_cover.pdf
38
http://coyotegulch.wordpress.com/category/colorado-water/tamarisk-control/
In SWFL habitat, a tiered, patchwork approach for tamarisk removal is an idea that is gaining
momentum. This entails the removal of some tamarisk along with active or passive re-vegetation that
will offer alternative habitat for the SWFL as tamarisk removal continues in future years.
Depending on the location that your partnership and project work are planned, you may have
different species of Threatened and Endangered species that you will need to learn about and that may
impact the ability or the speed to implement projects.
Working On Private Lands
Connecting with private landowners is a good place to start, however this should be a topic that is
carefully strategized to utilize the best representatives and/or prior connections that exist. Cold-calling
private landowners is not always a good option. It is important to gauge the interests and perspectives of
landowners to understand how restoration discussions may play out. Perhaps a press-release is in order
or the creation of a landowner education workshop to outreach efforts. It is helpful if funding through
grant sources, Partners for Fish and Wildlife or the National Resource Conservation Service (see below)
is available to aid or match potential private landowner contributions. In addition, can restoration work
be done that can enhance other aspects of private lands, such as grazing forage, to help entice a landowner
to participate?
As with any project, site visits and up-front discussions are an integral component. Liability for
project work must be clearly understood and discussed. Agreements are often necessary to put items of
concern and a scope of work in writing. It is important to consider that a partnership may not be an actual
legal entity, meaning that a specific partner may need to cover the liability for a particular project, such as
a corps program, a contractor or another organization with adequate liability coverage and insurance.
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
The Soil Conservation Service started in the mid 1900’s when the federal government realized the
importance of stewardship for lands in the United States which were privately owned. This program
developed into the NRCS, which has become a conservation leader in many realms, including wetland
and habitat improvement. “NRCS works with landowners through conservation planning and assistance
designed to benefit the soil, water, air, plants, and animals that result in productive lands and healthy
ecosystems.” http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/
Listed below are a few of the NRCS programs that might be helpful to become familiar with in
order to understand how NRCS, Private Landowners and your partnership may be able to work together
to improve riparian habitat.




Conservation Stewardship Program,
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program,
Wetlands Reserve Program,
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
39

For more information on NRCS visit www.nrcs.usda.gov
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
As a program of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners has a mission “To efficiently achieve
voluntary habitat restoration on private lands, through financial and technical assistance, for the benefit of
Federal Trust Species” http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/habcon/partners/index.html
Partners Program staff work to develop strong partnerships to:
• Contribute to the health of the land while maintaining the landowner’s quality of life and sustainable
business practices
• Utilize technical expertise and efficient state-federal-private resources to accomplish conservation goals
• Emphasize voluntary landowner participation and decision-making
Baseline information
In addressing watershed health, it is telling to collect baseline information on the type of habitat,
vegetative communities, invasive species present, grazing (historical and present), user groups, cultural
and historical sites, important wildlife, etc… It is also helpful to collect any mapping (such as that the
Tamarisk Coalition or similar organization may provide) of the invasive and native plant communities
including canopy cover densities, and terrain. Not only will this help in assessing where to work, which
will be discussed further, but will be helpful in monitoring changes that take place. This process will also
help to identify areas where more information, private land access, or other resources are necessary. As a
Corps representative, it will be useful to become familiar with this information to understand the
ecosystems you may be working in including uses, access etc…
Funding
It might seem obvious that funding sources would be discussed in a partnership but this is not
always the case. At times the person or agency that has applied or received funding may not think it is
important for others in the group to understand, as that person may be the only one responsible for
reporting and deliverables. However there may be additional benefits to a grantor that partners can
provide. For example, the Tamarisk Coalition may be conducting outreach and education that will be
useful for local citizens. The conservation/youth corps can provide numerous benefits alongside the
actual project work.
As stated above, one of the benefits of collaboration is the ability to pool resources towards a
common goal. Conservation/youth corps have the ability to apply for grants that can support project
work, positive youth development, education and outreach, healthy lifestyles etc… They also may be
able to offer assistance in the form of field support and other staff time. This expands the realm of
funding that can be acquired surrounding a project, and is most certainly a benefit.
Although the Walton Family Foundation has been an important component of many watershed
partnerships in the southwest including the Dolores, Escalante and Verde watersheds, there are a host of
funding sources that seek to improve watershed health.
40
If a number of contractors, conservation/youth corps, and individuals are working together on the
same watershed under the same funding, these groups all need to make sure that they are gathering data in
the same fashion for consistency in reporting.
Monitoring
Without monitoring the progress that is made, both in acres of invasive species removed and
observing what grows in after removal, there would be no way to assess if desired results were achieved.
For a watershed partnership it’s important to have a monitoring plan in place, a model to follow and
specific measurements. There are a number of effective ways to monitor results and these need to be
agreed upon for use throughout the project area and watershed. The purpose is to allow the compilation
of data across boundary lines, BLM offices and on private lands if monitoring is possible. Monitoring
should be replicated in the same place, over multiple years to gain accurate, reliable results. Funding
needs to be put aside to cover these costs and they may be the best money your partnership spends. This
will tell you whether or not an adjustment in technique or additional treatments will be needed. A plan
for storage and compilation of data should be identified so results can be easily compared and analyses be
made.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14. Site Selection, Watershed approach:
When approaching a project as large as a watershed, how does one choose the best sites to work
that will make the most beneficial ecological impact across the greatest distance? In a nutshell, the
answer to this question should dictate all the work that is done on the ground.
Baseline Information
As mentioned previously in this document, it is important to collect baseline information from all
available sources to prepare for this decision making process. This process will likely be the first step in
developing a comprehensive, science and fact based restoration plan for a project or watershed.
From the example above, let us assume that Zee partnership has gathered the necessary GIS data,
aerial photographs and maps. These should display public and private land, road and trail access, grazing
allotments, native plant communities, and tamarisk, Russian olive and other noxious weed infestations.
Ideally the maps will indicate a characterization of the invasive species canopy cover or density.
A good next step will be to identify areas of importance. These may be critical wildlife or habitat
(such as threatened or endangered), cultural /archeological sites, camp sites, recreation areas, high risk for
fire, rare plants etc… This information can be gathered from land management agency specialists, local
people, rangers, ranchers and more.
Reaches
41
Once all of this information is gathered, it is time to get to work identifying sites. One suggestion
is to start by breaking down river sections into reaches or workable and tangible areas. These reaches
may be delineated by ecological boundaries, private lands, access points, vegetative communities,
geomorphology, or level of infestation by woody invasives. The combination of these factors that are
appropriate to use in delineating reaches, will have to be decided prior to the actual site selection. This
breaking-up of the river into bite-sized sections will make the job of prioritizing seem a little less
daunting. It will also help one to start to understand the riparian corridor in a more detailed sense. Right
away, one might see that certain reaches will start to prioritize over others.
As an example, on the Tres Rios BLM District in the development of the Dolores River- Riparian
Action Plan, the river was broken down into reaches, the maps were layed out on the table and the shape
files were up on the computer. Reaches were identified and charted on a left column. Prioritization
criteria were identified in the top row. In this case, the criteria were Native Community, Floodplain
access, Tamarisk Density, Other Invasives, Physical Access, Permission or Support from Land owner and
Compatible land management. Other criteria may be added as needed. Each reach was given a level of
priority for each criteria. High, Medium or Low priority was assigned to each criteria based on previous
knowledge, expertise in the room, and available resources. If no decision was able to be made for one
specific reach criteria, this was tabled until further information could be gathered. At the finish of this
exercise, each criteria rating was given a number; High=3, Medium=2, Low =1 and the reach was scored
accordingly. This total score allowed for the prioritization of river reaches, but not the prioritization of
each site or infestation within each reach.
Some areas will receive obvious prioritization, such as clearing around a rock art panel that would
be damaged /destroyed by wildfire. Other areas may take a little more effort to pick out. Whenever
possible, it will help to do some type of reconnaissance or site visit to determine the accuracy of mapping
and identify details which may otherwise be overlooked.
On the upper Dolores, the partnership decided that the best approach to specific site prioritization
would be to assess the native composition (priority species being cottonwood and box-elder), and address
the low and moderate infestations of tamarisk that are more plentiful than the high infestations (over 55%
canopy cover). It was found that these low and moderate infestations often retain a good percentage of
native vegetation mixed in, which allows for natural or passive re-vegetation (see ch. 8). This was
favored, especially in the Tres Rios BLM District where the majority of infestations are low to moderate,
and access for heavy equipment and re-vegetation materials are uncommon.
Once the initial round of prioritization of sites is tallied, it is especially important to scrutinize
these decisions by taking a second look at the factors in each site. Again, this is a great time to get out
and kick the dirt; to take what you have learned from the maps and compare it to what is actually on the
ground. Incorporating what is learned on the ground is an important aspect of Adaptive Management and
should be documented in changes to a watershed action plan. In other words, a partnership’s plan for
watershed restoration should be a living document that incorporates lessons learned.
Other Considerations For Restoration
As a part of the assessment of prioritized areas it is also useful to install monitoring wells to
gauge groundwater levels/fluctuation and do salinity testing, especially in areas where planting is
42
planned. As mentioned above, in 2010 a resource; “Best Management Practices for Revegetation After
Tamarisk Removal in the Upper Colorado River Basin” was published and is a wonderful resource for
site preparation as well as revegetation. The Tamarisk Coalition has a website that is another great
resource for this process and more: www.tamariskcoalition.org. Ground water levels (and of course,
surface water) will impact what species are able to reestablish on a particular site and are important to
know before plans are solidified for treatment. Both Russian Olive and Tamarisk are highly salt tolerant,
and if you remember from the discussion above, tamarisk adds salinity to the surface soil through
deposition of leaves. Many native species desired to replace tamarisk, whether planted or naturally
established, may not be able to survive in the current soil conditions, and this is important to identify
before implementing any restoration activities.
Best Management Practices order form:
http://www.tamariskcoalition.org/PDF/BMP%20Revegetation%20Order%20Form.pdf
_____________________________________________________________________________________
15. Restoration
Revegetation
Inherent in the planning process for invasive species treatment should be consideration of the
need for revegetation after removal and other activities such as herbicide application. This responsibility
will likely be that of a land manager, private land owner or collaborative of stakeholders and local
resources that make up a watershed partnership.
As stated in chapter 8, the type of revegetation (passive or active) required on a site should relate
to the amount of native vegetation present at the onset of a project. To reiterate recommendations from
“Best Management Practices for Revegetation after Tamarisk Removal” (BMP), a cover of 25% native
vegetation in upland areas and 10% in riparian areas is adequate for passive revegetation.
Critera
Criteria for active revegetation should be established by a watershed partnership or subcommittee. This may be an important section in a partnership’s restoration action plan. Suggestions for
components of this are:









Baseline conditions (salinity, depth to water table, rainfall, flow regime)
Type of activity
Competition from other invasives/ need to treat before revegetation
Compatible land management (OHV use, Grazing, etc)
Best timing for activities (ex- willows should be planted during dormancy)
Materials needed (fencing, salt tolerant plants, long stem, local varieties)
Equipment (hammer drills, stingers, fencing tools)
Irrigation needs and resources
Cost (Materials, Equipment and Time)
43


Access (on foot, roads, for heavy equipment)
Volunteer project potential?
Once information is gathered, it can be fairly simple to prioritize areas in a similar fashion to site
selection for treatment described in chapters 5 and 14. Often, one factor in this process may make the
decision for a group. If access for a site proves difficult for transporting the equipment and plants
necessary for a revegetation project, this will likely be an indicator that this area is not a good site.
Timing for active revegetation must take into account any herbicide residue in the soils and allow for
these to breakdown. It is important to consider these aspects before an area is treated as this may impact
weather or not to treat the area in the first place. One concern would be that other invasive species may
replace the tamarisk or Russian olive without active revegetation. Adequate monitoring and follow-up
should address re-sprouts and secondary invasives to bring a project to success and a point of minimal
maintenance.
Where To Get Plant Materials
See chapter 8
Beavers And Restoration
The reintroduction of beaver in riparian habitats where historical occupation of these species were
evident can benefit riparian restoration projects in a number of ways.













Dams can slow flow and extend flows over time
Flooding, erosion and channel cutting are reduced in intensity
Ponds store water
Permit continued stream flow
Dam/pond complexes create mosaic of wetlands
Increase habitat for vegetation, fish and wildlife
Diversity increases
Wildlife corridors become more functional
Late summer flows can be sustained
Phosphorous and Nitrogen and sediment levels are reduced in the watercourse
Channel meanders and floodplain connectivity are increased
Turbidity is reduced, which can favor fish habitat
Incised channels can be mitigated and connected to adjacent agricultural lands
Despite all of the benefits listed above, the reintroduction of beavers can be challenging and
public education is a key component. Not everything that beavers do is considered beneficial. To some,
beavers are considered pests that damage or kill trees and create dams that can flood agricultural lands or
create hazards for livestock. Beaver dams can block culverts and wash out roads. These disadvantages to
introduction of beavers can be expensive to repair.
http://www.fsiculvert.com/_common/pdfs/Beaverstop-AD-3-54.pdf
44
http://www.seventh-generation.org/Climate_riparian_beaver.html
http://www.landscouncil.org/documents/HangmanBeaverReport.pdf
_____________________________________________________________________________________
16. Monitoring:
A partnership or coalition’s goals and vision should inform the structure of a monitoring protocol.
This decision will likely be led by land managers or other organizations that have experience developing
protocols and may have current models to use as reference. Any type of monitoring across a broad
landscape with varying conditions will take some thought. At times it is helpful to bring in outside
experts or consultants to help develop this important aspect. Every partnership or coalition has their own
set of goals that may extend well beyond the treatment of invasive species. Therefore monitoring may
incorporate a number of targets. In addition it is important to respect the backgrounds and experience
within a partnership, as well as the preferred methods of land managers. Remember, all of the
information will need to be housed somewhere and data will need to be comparable across the project to
be useful for watershed wide monitoring.
Along The Dolores River
As an example, there are two types of monitoring protocols being used in the Dolores River
Restoration Partnership’s projects. The first is meant to gauge the vegetative habitat response of the
entire watershed to combined efforts of individual restoration sites. This “watershed-wide monitoring”
occurs at 40 representative sites throughout the basin, ten being located in each of four BLM Field
Offices. These sites are monitored between July and August each year for the next five years using line
intercept and quadrant methods to determine vegetative response to treatments. Future monitoring will
take place in this same method for at least 5 years.
The second type of monitoring is a “rapid project assessment” meant to establish whether or not
individual project sites are responding to treatments as expected (i.e. whether or not they are on the way
to success). This monitoring effort will occur every year and will rotate through project sites so that each
site is visited every few years. This protocol is very user friendly and is intended to be carried out by
interns, volunteers, etc. with the purpose of evaluating the native vegetation response to treatments at all
sites over time. This will be coupled with the watershed wide protocol in order to get a better picture in
different stretches of the Dolores and to inform adaptive management needs.
Adaptive management applies information learned from monitoring to benefit future restoration
efforts. This is an on-going process where implementation and monitoring inform maintenance of a
restoration site and improved implementation methods at new sites. Examples of how adaptive
management can be used comes from regular monitoring results on topics such as secondary invasives,
native vegetation establishment at a treatment site, herbicide treatment efficacy and technique, project
strategy and approaches.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
45
17. Fundraising Strategy
One of the most important aspects of a collaborative partnership, alongside planning and
implementation, is funding. Little work can be completed without this crucial ingredient. It is often the
case that land management and other agencies may come to the table with some funding in hand and a
knowledge of future sources for further funding, but will this be enough?
A funding strategy must incorporate multiple benefits across the physical and social landscape to
be broadly applicable. A strategy must be developed over time and as soon as possible to start reaching
restoration goals. It is important to note that having a good plan in place, such as a Woody Invasives
Control Plan, or a Riparian Action Plan will greatly strengthen grant applications. This plan will show
that adequate research and attention has gone into a well-thought-out strategy for the type of restoration
proposed. A plan will often include much of the standard background language that can be incorporated
in grant applications.
One Example
A broad approach incorporating the grant writing capacities of multiple partners and best-fit
organizations through an organized committee structure is one suggestion for fundraising within a
partnership. While a land management may be the best fit for applying for funding within the federal
government, they may not qualify to apply for other grants. A corps program may be able to bring in
youth initiative or employment/community focused grants. A non-profit may have existing relationships
with other funders that can be leveraged or matching funds that can be provided. In this instance,
cooperation, communication and strategy must be clear to avoid issues. A coordinated effort will also
assure that letters of support from partners are available to boost applications.
In the approach outlined above, a key component is planning for projects at least one-year out.
This means that as funding sources are identified, and pre-proposals or letters of inquiry are crafted, that a
partnership knows with certainty the locations where projects can be matched with various funding types.
Many grants contain stipulations about where or how components of a project must be implemented to be
considered, and it will be imperative to have the ability to address these in a timely fashion to take
advantage of available funding opportunities.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
18. Lessons Learned:
With the number of watershed focused partnerships, collaborations and related groups that are
popping up in the southwest as of late, there is a whole lot of restoration happening on the ground. Corps
crews are only one of the workforces in the mix, though a portion of this document is focused towards
increasing knowledge and capacity for these types of programs. This guide is a first step in documenting
lessons learned from burgeoning partnerships and the processes they have developed, in attempt to assist
newer coalitions and corps programs by providing host of models and resources to begin with. The
information here-in is meant to be part of a living document, one that will continue to develop over time,
and that will stay relevant as new information is gleaned.
46
It is important that as a partnership evolves, a process exists for documenting and sharing
successes and failures. Some partnerships take this on informally through discussion at regular meetings,
others incorporate this once a season into a committee agenda. Whatever the format for this, keep track!
Other partnerships, land managers, corps staff, non-profits and restoration practitioners can benefit from
this knowledge.
A strategy for sharing lessons between partnerships is simply cross watershed meeting attendance
and updates. Invite others to your meetings, take others up on their invitations. Create websites to share
information, document and distribute. Write a really long document! The Tamarisk Coalition (TC),
based in Grand Junction, Colorado, has a website, Riparian Restoration Connection
(www.riparianrestorationconnection.com) to share resources, workshops and events. The site also has a
community forum where practitioners can ask questions or post advice. The TC is also working currently
(June, 2012) to engage the vast number of partnership members, riparian experts, land managers, nonprofits, in a Cross-Watershed-Collaboration group with a focus of sharing information and models.
Incorporating lessons learned, whether they are technical, philosophical or research based, is an
extension of adaptive management in a broad sense. This is where large scale improvements can start to
happen and a trial and error approach can be abandoned.
47