Office of the Regional Executive for Biology - Central Region
Tamarisk-Russian Olive Partnership Coordination Meeting
Albuquerque
,
New Mexico
August 27-28, 2003
Meeting Record (Flip Charts)
Meeting
Chair: Frank D’Erchia, USGS
Central Region
Meeting Coordinators: Leanne Hanson
& Pat Shafroth,
USGS
Fort Collins
Science
Center
Recorder: Juliette Wilson, USGS Fort Collins Science Center/JCI
[Note: Flips have been checked
against PowerPoint presentations and other notes; in some cases a slide not
recorded was added here to provide clarification or context.]
Page 1
Introduction
[Goals for today:]
- Your
needs
- USGS
capabilities
Casadevall:
8 Central Region (CRO) Science Priorities
§
Agricultural Practices**
§
Urban dynamics (heartland to Rocky Mountain Front Range)**
§
Rivers**
§
Groundwater**
§
Fire science**
§
Coalbed Methane
§
DOI science
§
Invasive Species**
** of particular relevance to tamarisk/Russian-olive
Page 2
C.R.I.S.P. money is about half a million dollars (oversight/input by
regional science advisory team) [could be available to help?].
Criteria:
§
Integrated science
§
Supportive of DOI science/Forest Service NRCS
§
Links to CRO science priorities
Can help with:
§
Research
§
Inventory and monitoring
§
Technical assistance
Region [offers expertise in] hydrology, restoration,
distribution mapping, habitat, and fire issues.
Ludke:
Our [CRO] role is to get a sense of DOI issues and needs
\Hear
most consistently: Invasives
issues
This is a national issue, but a local regulation
problem. More effort is coming on
science, control. We want to work
with managers, do needed science in partnership. Work in adaptive management
mode to make the most of resources.
Page 3
Goal: cross-agency
teams to write research management needs and ideas for demonstration projects.
PHASE I: Customer
Activities and Science Needs
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service – Charles
Ault
Often ask: Control, or not?
If control, what are the effects?
Management challenges:
Ø
Population/urban growth [and consequent water demand]
Ø
Ag practices lead to increases in soil salinity, which
Tamarisk/Russian-olive can tolerate
Ø
Leads to riparian species challenges.
Ø
As tamarisk advances, fire possibility increases.
Depend on partners to help address present and future problems.
Drought cycle: greater
stresses
Tamarisk/Russian-olive existence: plusses and minuses:
Plusses:
Minuses:
-
Displaces native flora (e.g., cottonwood, willow, other
ESA species)
-
Exacerbates water losses
-
Decreased plant/animal
diversity
Page 4
Expensive, time-intensive, but must control to protect ESA
species as mandated.
Refuge management concerns:
-
Saltcedar clogs desert water holes
-
Saltcedar and Russian-olive encroach into wetlands,
moist soil management units
-
Costs $380-700/acre to control
-
Greater probability of wildfire
Page 5
5.
What are expected conditions in extended drought?
Where should we focus our attention first?
6.
Where and under what conditions should we manage for native
communities?
7.
What are the primary vectors for spread?
Q: Potential for biological control?
A: If targeted effectively, can feel
confident using it. But we don’t
have that yet.
Q: Mexican border:
Invasion? Cooperation with
Mexico? [Re controlling it in U.S.
only to have it come back across Mexico border]
A: [This is at] the discussion
stage. Must work on both sides [of
the border] for U.S. success.
Page 6
Must also monitor the effects of chemical agents on nontarget spp. (Refuges
are selective re: the chemicals used.)
New Mexico Association of
Conservation Districts – Debbie Hughes
NM Saltcedar Control Project
Legislature to Soil Conservation Districts:
$5 million for nonnative phreatophytes control ($2.5m each for Pecos
River and Rio Grande), plus $1.2m more in FY03.
[Working with?] (450 private landowners)
Many requirements: management
and restoration plans, ESA compliance, public involvement.
Had 26 public meetings. For
work on BOR/BLM land. Monitoring
soil, water via NMSU Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center;
using USGS gaging station.
[Also monitor control effects on wildlife, vegetation.]
[Research holes:]
ESA species effects—no-spray areas on both rivers
Voluntary participation by agencies, landowners
The technology used is location-specific (as to whether to
spray, use mechanical means, etc.)
Page 7
Got their 24C label for Arsenal on the Pecos; forthcoming
for the Rio Grande
More funds for different projects, including goats! (for
saltcedar control)
Chinese leaf beetle in NM at some sites—another tool to
try.
\Using
both spraying and mechanical removal. Then
address restoration years after spraying to see what comes back.
Many federal partnerships, including CRP; also Pueblos,
cities. Accessing and matching state
money to various other federal programs. Creative
incentive legislation (e.g., corporate tax credit for using [in production]
invasive species). There are other
legislative funding opportunities.
««How
can USGS help? ([Emphasized] monitoring—already know how to kill it.)
§
Revegetation of riparian areas
§
Soil health monitoring
§
Groundwater monitoring
§
Surface Water monitoring
§
Wildlife monitoring
-
-
Prioritize at local levels (legislation dictated [work
on] the Pecos and Rio Grande). Try
to balance
-
Combine resources to understand the big picture.
The historical priority is local landowners.
-
Need to find out who’s doing what, what others are
doing.
Probability of [future] USGS report saying tamarisk removal
doesn’t increase water flow. But
legislature says tamarisk removal means more water [so they fund it on that
assumption]
Page 9
Save Our Bosque [del Apache NWR] Task Force – Gina DelloRusso (USFWS)
Floodplain Management and Habitat Restoration
NEEDS:
1.
Control saltcedar/Russian-olive
2.
Revegetation (for the mix of habitat types)
***Current Research Focus:
1.
Wildlife use
2.
Exotics control (still need a handle on)
3.
Riparian vegetation re: establishment
a.
Successful techniques
b.
Diversity/dynamics
4.
Mimicking of natural processes
5.
Water use, including evapotranspiration [E-T] on restored areas
Draft Restoration plan on active floodplain in NWR
§
[Includes] research, monitoring, adaptive management
§
Exotic removal and revegetation are part of it
Research and monitoring foci (see slide)
Balance between water delivery,
wildlife habitat (complexity of challenges, like the drain) (in addition to
phreatophyte spp)
Page 10
Floodplain
management:
Human encroachment! So
working with landowners
a.
Feasibility study (vegetative cover, landownership, flood
potential, estimated costs of protection/restoration)
b.
Conceptual restoration plan (cost, flooding potential, people,
river processes) (used 2-D flow model)
c.
Implementation
d.
Partnership
[Implementation and partnership
are next steps from feasibility study]
Conceptual Restoration plan:
Ø
More habitat diversity
Ø
Restore river processes (to the extent possible) (one of 2 goals)
o
inform management skills
Ø
Control fire danger
Ø
ESA issues
Ø
Improved water/land management
Technical
Assistance:
- Planning
(design and specs, modeling, prioritizing)
- Implementation
- Maintenance
- Research
and monitoring foci:
- wildlife
use and trends
- Hydrogeomorphological
trends
- Biotic
trends
- Water
balance
[\Restoration
of river processes: peak flows,
maintained flows, channel dynamics, succession of habitats]
Page 11
[Current] limited channel capacity
TRENDS in river channel (monitor, maintain open river
channel dynamics) to inform MANAGEMENT NEEDS
[USGS can] fold into research program (DOI-funded)
BOR: Rio Grande Project –
Brent Tanzy
E.g., how much does tamarisk actually use?
Fred Nibling: tests
methods on the ground (Flood Control Act of 1948 drives plant control)
Mow tamarisk—must keep up with it or it shoots up!
Also new tools:
Herbicides, cut stump (plus Garlon), ground-rig foliar
application, aerial spraying, removal (can be $2000/acre), Chinese leaf beetle
Page 12
Efficacy study (types of spraying and herbicide mixes)
Mechanical removal and cut stump plus Garlon
Vegetation mapping
Flycatcher surveys
[Involvement with] USDA-ARS, APHIS, Conservation Districts,
etc.
Fred Nibling:
Invasive species research team at BOR Technical Service
Center in Denver (RandD, tech support); focus on riparian zones, aquatic plants
Tamarisk initiative:
Tamarisk: estimate annual
water loss at 2.4 million acre-feet
(to give an
idea: equivalent to Arizona’s entire Colorado River [2.8 m acre-feet]
allotment!)
Estimate $133-265 million annual cost of tamarisk-inspired water
problems.
««NEED:
Good distribution map
Spread is estimated at 20,000 acres per year; have 1.6
million acres of it now in western U.S.
Also, tamarisk’s area consumption is much greater than
cottonwood because of its bigger footprint.
Research: the
beetle (species-specific); integrating field studies in regionally distributed
sites
Restoration strategies/technologies:
Several study sites, cooperators
Cibola burn area—[tamarisk is] highly fire adapted!
Comes right back.
Page 13
Multiparameter tests in grid test
cells
--Different treatments to remove, restore
(integrate the two) in tough upland, dryland areas
USGS report: surface
water taken up by dryland natives to keep it from going deeper.
With phreatophytics, how does this work?
\Get
all science players to the table re: water uptake/salvage (historic and
continuing disagreement among them): What’s
really true? How much water does
saltcedar REALLY use?
--Relate to BOR water
releases—how much is needed?
Bottom line: a
dead tree doesn’t use water!
Page 14
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service – Ken Leiting
[See green handout]
««Research
needs:
§
Firm up [what is the] water savings
§
Target highest savings areas (stream edge, watershed?)
§
Are lower-cost mechanical controls available?
§
What about biological control?
§
Whole watershed or riverbanks?
§
Best cost-effective controls
§
Process for/cost of long-term maintenance
o
Control of regrowth
o
Rehabilitation of riparian area
§
Water quality issues on land post-treatment
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; COE below) – Ondrea Linderoth-Hummel
Dam areas—saltcedar and water gain, habitat projects at
various areas (Rio Grande, Pecos River, in Colorado, etc.)
Pecos: 1135
restoration program (need to partner), matching 75% COE/25% with states, NGOs
(not feds). Can use this program for
saltcedar/Russian-olive removal.
Page 15
E.g. projects:
Middle Rio Grande—restoration
Route 66 demonstration project:
nonnative management
Working with City of Albuquerque
on priority areas
206 Aquatic Ecological Restoration Program—no dam but
still can help with nonnatives and restoration at 65%/35% [again, nonfederal
partners]
E.g., Pecos—removal of dead
stuff and restoration (State $: removal. COE $: restoration)
COE ecological administration:
[Can help] elsewhere [away from dams] partly because of disturbance
[created by dams], but also work on COE lands.
Management goals:
- Ecosystem
restoration; return system to more native community
2.
««NEED:
Coordination of partners and efforts, [and with] big picture, entire
watershed approach
- Also
coordination and leverage of financial resources.
Page 16
««Ongoing
questions:
- Water
use/gain vis-à-vis saltcedar
- What
is it really?
- More
information on successful removal techniques:
- What
works best, where?
Q/A: Restoration
plans vary according to partner/site needs, goals (within some general
guidelines)
Q: Saltcedar
and sediment stabilization (historically used to trap it):
If remove the saltcedar, will there be a down-the-road cost if the
reservoirs fill up?
A: The
saltcedar trees are more hazardous than the sediment.
Page 17
National Park Service – Pam Benjamin
Contact: pam_benjamin@nps.gov,
303-969-2865
Region covers Montana-Utah-Wyoming-Colorado-New
Mexico-Texas.
Infestations of saltcedar throughout NPS units, from highly
used areas to wilderness (range of occurrence)
CCI: Restoration
Initiative—possible $2.4 million for IMR [Inventory-Monitoring-Research?] in
2004—50% nonfederal match.
GOAL: Eradicate
where possible; or, contain, prevent spread and reinfestation of treated areas.
Expect the [NM?] legislature to allow NPS folks and money
[to be used] outside NPS unit boundaries to work with adjacent landowners,
watershed.
The Natural Resource Challenge:
Developed 17 exotic plant species management teams (bio-geographic
networks) that are set up for control. Now
into inventory and monitoring (want them to exceed NPS boundaries as well)
Have partnerships with EPA, Navajo Nation, BLM, BOR, at
different sites
Page 18
BOR is contributing:
§
Baseline data (multi-disciplinary)
§
Testing restoration technologies (BOR, USGS-FORT)
§
[Treatment?] Site comparisons
««Research
NEEDS:
--Need watershed approach
- Post-treatment
restoration/revegetation techniques
- Comparisons/evaluations
of various control techniques (efficiencies/successes)
--Way to put it
all together for sets of conditions (best way)
- How
to manipulate hydrologic regimes, esp. in dam-influenced areas.
- Synecology
of invaded areas
- Long-term
evaluation of biological control efforts
Page 19
Bureau of Land Management – Bernardo Chavez
««Research
NEEDS:
We’re now into more active involvement with invasive
species, esp. saltcedar, esp. in NM. Hope
the money will allow more efforts in riparian areas.
«Need
to partner with others who can do the work.
Page 21
City of Albuquerque Open Space Division – Matt Schmader
2,600 acres of Bosque—260-acre fire now in
restoration/burn recovery mode
Response of nonnatives (saltcedar/Russian-olive) is to
aggressively repopulate post-fire
Challenge: Size
of the job, need ~5 years’ followup
Must remove nonnatives and fuel loads
Cut and treat—full-time jobs for some.
Post-fire “use of burn”
§
Where it resprouts vigorously, take it out.
§
Create more moist soil areas for willow, cottonwoods
Costs much more to treat after a burn, maybe 3-5 times as
much, with removal, revegetation, 5-year follow-through.
$300/acre [is this the norm or the increased amount?]
Riparian Restoration (USGS-FORT) – Pat Shafroth
I. Point:
Many control projects would benefit from thinking about restoration up
front.
BECAUSE water salvage, habitat
restoration depends on what you replace tamarisk with.
[Tamarisk has a] broad distribution, but variable
expression and abundance (doesn’t behave the same everywhere – monoculture
to blends) at different sites.
FACTORS: (land
use, climate, fire, floods, salinity, groundwater impacts, flow regulation,
other spp., extreme events--see slide) – all vary, interact in various ways.
Natural flood regimes tend to favor natives.
Where the natural regimes are altered, tamarisk thrives – takes
advantage of these variations (broad niche and can [survive in them])
Page 25
Low flows – tamarisk is relatively drought, salt, and
fire tolerant
Successful/sustainable
restoration programs:
current site
conditions:
- Identify
cause of ecological degradation (current site conditions)
- what
allows tamarisk to thrive
- Addresses
future site conditions? (likelihoods)
- What
species likely to thrive?
- Are
tamarisk–favorable conditions changed?
- Has
clear, specific, realistic objectives
- Prioritization
- Total
eradication probably not possible
- Employs
monitoring [and uses information for] adaptive management
Items 1 and 2 will influence removal means vis-à-vis desired restoration
plants
Approaches
- Natural
revegetation: tamarisk likely to
recolonize if [underlying] conditions not changed and/or annual weeds may
colonize, sometimes natives
[Success is]
often climate/flow dependent in years following control.
Page 26
- Active
restoration approaches
- Seeding/planting
- Site
preparation
- Irrigation,
weed control
\is
site-specific, expensive
- Passive
approaches
- Remove
stressor
- Restore
natural process
- Allow
biotic community to recover on own
(All 3 are in most restoration plans – add to success)
- Streamflow
management downstream of dams
(managed flooding, base flows)
- Hybrid
approaches (e.g., assisted regeneration of cottonwood/willows)
- Manipulate
to reintroduce what’s missing (assume seed source)
i.
(E.g., bare surface + moist surface + gradual drawdown
→successful reintroduction of natives)
Capabilities: Riparian
Restoration
- Site evaluation, restoration potential
- Cottonwood/willow restoration
- Pre- and post-project monitoring (not long
enough); data analysis (not written up)
-- we can do, tie back into
adaptive management loop
Conclusion [see Pat’s flow chart on ppt.]:
- Tamarisk
occupies broad range of riparian sites throughout western North America
- Restoration
potential of these sites varies; prioritize and consider variety of
approaches
- Introduction
and spread of tamarisk is usually not the primary cause of riparian
ecosystem degradation
- Successful
restoration efforts usually require addressing primary causes of degradation
Begin with the end in mind for long-term success
Q/A – Tamarisk/climate change?
2nd-order issue because river corridor is more buffered.
But could have impact in ephemeral intermittent/areas.
Genetics “messed up” --
hybrids – difficult to manipulate. But
does influence biological control techniques to be sure they work on hybrids.
Means of removal can affect what
will, can, or you want to come back!
Page 27
Role of private sector research,
e.g. chemical companies?
- current chemicals pretty effective
- driven by $ - not huge incentive; $$ to develop/market a new product.
Control and Risk
Assessment (USGS-CERC) – Jim Fairchild
[See handout,
Powerpoint]
CERC’s Tamarisk
interest:
- Ecological risk assessment of
herbicides
- Develop analytical chemical
methods
- Environmental fate of herbicides
(modeling, empirical assessment)
- Efficacy trials
Control measures
- Again, a combination is best
(mechanical, herbicidal, prescribed fire, biological)
- Risk assessments thereof (pros
and cons of each—see PPt.)
5-step framework for risk assessment (see slide)
(May cycle back, even to start):
- Problem
formation
- Data
gathering and analysis
- Risk
characterization
- Discussion
between Risk Assessor and Risk manager
- Risk
management
Page 29
Chemical risks to people/critters/vegetation/water, (stock,
fish, crops, ESA species, groundwater)
[Problem formulation example;
Risk to ESA fish]
§
Data gathering + analysis re risk
§
Multi-species sensitivity distribution (toxicity) of 5
elements and compounds as part of risk
- Compare to exposure
distribution.
§
→ Probabilistic risk assessment:
“major risk” or “minor risk” (in example – see ppt)
§
Toxicity of herbicide/means of application
→ risk to fish
\how
to minimize it (re choice of chemical application method)
e.g., aerial (use less toxic), stump cut (can use
higher toxicity because applied to a focused, smaller area), etc.
Then consider efficacy + cost/risk
tradeoffs
Page 30
Consider range of conditions
(Where, access, what’s around, to avoid unintended consequences)
→ Conduct appropriate
risk analysis!
Conclusions:
- Tamarisk is a
big problem!
- Multiple
control approaches needed
- Each method
has risks and benefits
- Risks can be
evaluated and minimized in a science-based framework
««Successful
tamarisk-removal program: need
science and the public in partnership.
- Still want very effective chemical (~90%) to minimize
chance of plant adapting to it.
Page 31
Water Use/Salvage Issues (Water Resources) – Dave Stannard
Assessing riparian invasive species impacts on water resources
1.
How great is evapotranspiration?
[What are the] effects on streamflow, water quality, water levels?
Capabilities
- Monitoring
streamflow
- Monitoring
groundwater levels
- Evapotranspiration
measurement and modeling (Eddy-Correlation
Sensors)
- Water
quality issues using state-of-the-art field methods (environmental tracers,
satellite data, stream gaging, digital data collection, geophysical methods,
well sampling, plus hydroacoustic
technology to identify water salvage or address question of unsteady flow)
- MODFLOW
[groundwater flow model]
**Can be used together to address hydrologic questions.
Remote sensing for vegetation types + Eddy Correlation to
measure evapotranspiration across the landscape
Water salvage→ river flow.
- what can we detect?
- what else going on in hydrologic system?
Larger scale to get more meaningful (be able to detect the difference)
--Calculation for water savings…
Change in Flow (CFS) = 0.88 x
W(mi) x L(mi) x Salvage (ft/yr)
If we clear 10mi2 of
Tamarisk, then – 0.88 x 10mi2 x 2ft/yr salvage = 17.6 cfs
If we clear 100mi2 of
Tamarisk, then – 0.88 x 100mi2 x 2ft/yr salvage = 176 cfs
Page 32
Difficulty/ethics involved with wrong information getting
to Congress (suspect numbers of acre-feet of salvage related to tamarisk
removal)
What is our role as a science agency?
Net radiation in larger areas, edge effects go away.
(Evapotranspiration values, water
salvage + leaf area)
Wildlife habitat
values and considerations (USGS-SBSC + NAU) – Charles Van Riper
(Saltcedar: No
Silver Bullet! Too much variation! But
must consider wildlife)
Objectives [of his work]:
- Determine
patterns of neotropical migrant warbler migrating in Mexico and Arizona
along the Colorado River corridor
- Evaluate
the effects of habitat management and practices along the corridor through
comparison of native vs. nonnative as neotropical migrant warbler foraging
habitat.
Passerines: Saltcedar
habitat in lower Colorado River Basin
(Native=50% or more native
species; v. 100% saltcedar habitat)
migratory paths and habitat use, “native” v. saltcedar.
Difference in tamarisk use as move north.
Fewer bugs in southernmost tamarisk sites.
Honey mesquite preferable. But
highest use is in mixed areas for all birds.
To enhance [habitat] for migrants in 100%
saltcedar, add 20-40% natives, and migrant birds will increase.
But will it stay?—[we’re] looking at that question.
But suggest mesquite, not cottonwood.
Page 33
Capabilities
Birds (large-scale questions)
Reptiles/herps (microclimates important) and flycatchers
Small mammals (ecotonal areas – can exist in saltcedar,
not “primo” to them)
More insectivores than seed eaters
Resources
Janet Ruth – birds
Mike Bogan – mammals
Cindy Ramotnik – mammals, salamanders
(All three are at USGS-FORT Arid Lands Field Station at the Univ. of
New Mexico)
Cecil Schwalbe, USGS-Western Ecological Research Center – herps-amphibians
Look into bird-mammal-herp interactions
Considering shift from habitat A→ habitat B
§
will add and lose spp. Know which [you are] losing
[with removal of tamarisk], like willow flycatcher (ESA)!
Variation in paths (Rio Grande v Colorado River)
Page 34
Management Goals:
§
BLM – elimination of exotics
§
Siberian elm + tamarisk, Russian-olive
§
Increase appropriate organic material in streams
§
Increase native shrub spp., canopy cover in river corridor,
§
Reduce bank erosion and improve water quality
§
CO: establish San
Miguel River as only naturally functioning, nonnative-free river…
§
AZ: eliminate all
tamarisk
Research
Needs
- Updated
maps!
- Integrate
(biologic, chemical, mechanical, fire) treatment and removal
technologies—think out
Better understanding of:
- Willow-tamarisk
competition dynamics
- Seed
dispersal dynamics and seedling establishment characteristics, and in
relation to water levels
- Rapid
riparian revegetation techniques
- Tamarisk
removal in flycatcher habitat
- Treatment
combos, e.g., burning followed by spraying
USFWS Research Needs, Region 2 – Dale Hall
[Absent day before]
- Public
outreach and education of what’s
happening with tamarisk and riparian systems – tell what we’re doing and
why.
- Answer
to public re: chemical, biological, even mechanical use.
Research to ensure safety [critic.]
- Replacement
plan!
